Intent and plans for the future of Singapore #GE2020

In the age of rampant falsehoods appearing on social media, especially on Facebook, it made sense to have a POFMA law. It is widely believed that the last US elections in 2016 was "rigged" by the Russians that led to the surprise victory of Donald J. Trump. Granted that there was a lot of animosity against Hillary Clinton, it was still an eyebrow-raising result. After 4 years, the US is a former shadow of itself in terms of leadership in Science and Technology, and perhaps more importantly, moral leadership in a world that is increasing a dangerous place to live in, and I am not just referring to COVD-19.

When Singapore pushed through its POFMA, many were concerned that it could be mis-used. And this appears to have happened. In GE2020, there does not appear to be any undue influence outside of the country, nor on social media from foreign sources that anyone, much less the PAP government, can point to that would make POFMA relevant. Some what do we do? We train the laws at our own people. I don't think there is any doubt in ANYBODY's mind that every candidate standing for GE2020 loves Singapore and want the best for the country they truly call their home.

So this selective use, or more precisely, mis-used, of POFMA laws proves the fears of detractors to be well-founded. It is not wrong of anybody to oppose the intent or plans that the PAP government may have raised but not subsequently implemented. It is a fair warning to people that a party that has a tendency to think a particular way may not have given up entirely on the idea, and to forewarn people that while these plans have not been realised, it will not be raised again some time in the future, when Elections are well out of the way. Then what?

This is why we must have good people like Dr Tambyah, Chee Soon Juan, Pritam Singh, Tan Cheng Bock and Jamus Lim in Parliament. The GRC is just an irritant, though eventually, probably, decisive. The dice is loaded.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-sdp-paul-tambyah-pofma-distraction-covid-19-dormitories-12904928

Japan surrenders - again

Singapore remembered the 75th anniversary of its surrender to the Imperial Japanese Army this month. More precisely, it is the surrender of the British colonial forces that had ruled Singapore for more than a century. On 15 February 1942, at the Ford Motor Factory situated in Bukit Timah, the British army, led by General Arthur E. Percival, signed, or behalf of the British Empire, the instrument of surrender, ceding the island to the Japanese invaders. Thence, for the next 3 and a half years, Singapore was renamed to the Japanese name 'Syonan-to' - meaning 'Light of the South'. To many, especially the Chinese and Eurasians, there was not to be any light, only darkness, fear and loss. Some managed to flee to up north, to the rural countryside in Peninsula Malaysia to eke out a living eating sweet potatoes and whatever else that could be gotten in war time. I know because my mother often mentioned about her life during those war years, an episode in her life that was anything but a bed of roses.

So when someone decided that the old Ford Motor factory be renamed the Syonan Gallery, I was surprised and a little disturbed. Wasn't there any other name that could be used? Hello, Singapore was 'liberated' from Japanese rule in 1945, and re-gained its 'Singapura' name. It took another 20 years for Singapore to gain independence and thence its proud name, Singapore. In retrospect, I cannot understand how and why some 'sick' mind(s) decided to name the Ford Motor Factory gallery to 'Syonan Gallery' after the sad and horrible period in Singapore's storied history.

Encik Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister of Communication and Information stood resolutely by this misnomer, giving his (the official) spin on the rationale for the name. Well, a fair number of Singaporeans did not share his spin and raised their voices in objection. It was a no-brainer, really, given that there are still people living in Singapore who had gone through the war and Occupation. To Encik Yaacob's credit, he reversed his decision and ordered that the gallery be given a more neutral name. Even Mr Khaw Boon Wan came out in support of this reversal, giving the reason that his maternal grandfather had suffered during the Occupation. One wonders, though, if he had objected to the name in the first place, or whether he had let it 'slide'. How strongly did he really feel about it, one wonders? Or is it a case of shedding political tears of the crocodile variety?

In any case, the matter is now settled amicably and, hopefully, a lesson learnt - that you cannot impose your view of the world on others, no matter how logical or reasonable it may be to you. There are feelings here and the weight of history that reason sometimes just cannot overcome.

Prince of Peace

Before people think that I am anti-Christian and anti-Christmas, nothing is further from the truth. Although many of the celebratory practices and rituals are not biblical, they do, to a large extent, reflect on the occasion.

Christmas is about the king coming to town. The decorations, the buntings, the candles, the lights and the music are indispensable to celebrate the arrival of one so important.

Christmas is about reconciliation, and what better way than to have a meal together, to smoke the peace pipe and mend relationships.

Christmas is about healing and sacrifice and what better way than to celebrate it with the less fortunate. Santa often plays an important role here.

Christmas is about love. It is a time to put down the year's hustle and bustle to come together, away from the office and the worksites, to renew and celebrate our love for each other.

Christmas is about peace. Christmas is not just for Christians, it is for the whole world, including those in ISIS / ISIL.

Christmas is about blessings to all men (and women), whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Catholic, the freethinkers and yes, the Sultan.

Christmas is about a good news, which is that God loves you, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah.

Gospel of Luke 2:8-14

... there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear.
And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

Blackout

The day my blog blacked out in support of FreeMyInternet.

This means that I am against the MDA ruling to require Singapore news websites with 50,000 unique hits a month over two month to be individually licensed and post a performance bond of S$50,000.

Be careful folks, the paths get slippery here if we stand for this thoughtless and certainly unpopular ruling. But then the PAP government always prides itself on making and imposing unpopular policies, whether they are inane or not.

Read also the news report 

Truth be told

The government's decision to gazette The Online Citizen (TOC) was a surprise, and a warning to myself. TOC started out aggregating blog posts by Singaporeans, such as mine. In fact, a search of TOC shows that I still have one blog post on their blog site. I thought this was swell - I get publicity and some bit of recognition for my writing. And I have never had any problems with them at all although I haven't been that active in the blogosphere for the past half year due to other pressing commitments.

I suppose that TOC has, over time, become more vocal about the Singapore political scene. It is now more like a newspaper, reporting and commenting on social and political issues of the day.  The suspicion is whether they have been 'taken over' by external parties (read: foreigners) who may be driving their agenda. Truth be told, I am totally ignorant about this, but I do notice that it isn't as 'innocent' as it once used to be.

Personally, I am not too comfortable with blog sites reporting about the issues of the day as if they knew best. If it is opinion, then I can accept it. My discomfort arise from the fact that you really don't know who are doing the reporting, and what their agenda might be. I have been around long enough to know that you take online content that purports to report on the 'truth' (expose is what they call it) with a pinch of salt, unless you know who are doing the reporting and what their credentials are. But things are evolving this way, and serious people who lack a license to publish often now do it online. This just can't be stopped, and shouldn't be stopped. But I can see how certain controls do make sense, if only to ensure that what is reported is done responsibly.

Of course, you can take all of the above with a pinch of salt.

Youth on the Balance

I was reminded today that if you do not want your personal details to be known, then don't put any of it online, on the internet, to be specific. The internet media has a long long memory. You can delete the pages where you posted these info, you can delete your account, but whatever you do, those pages, if they were once openly available on the internet, will always remain there in some cached pages (such as those that Google maintains) - perhaps till kingdom come or the internet is destroyed, whichever happens first. Even Google's demise, should it happen, would not erase those information. So also if you want to post a comment that can be viewed as a threat, especially one of bodily harm to someone living no more than 41 km away (that's the diagonal size of Singapore island). Then you had better be ready to defend yourself. In particular, I am referring to a Singaporean who did just that on his Facebook page - threaten to kill the Sports Minister of Singapore.

He was arrested and questioned, as anyone who has threatened murder should be, and subsequently released on bail. I agree with many who wrote on the incident, that if he hasn't done anything wrong, he should not be afraid. And he displayed this fearlessness by subsequently claiming, on the internet again, that whatever he said wasn't literal. One can argue till the cows come home if his tirade on his Facebook page is a piece of literary art form or a bald threat by a would-be terrorist. That he goes by a Malay name doesn't help. He should have known better, or is he fronting for someone in the shadows? For all that we say about freedom of speech, if this person boarded a subway train, I will not follow him into that same train. Call me a coward, or accuse me of being paranoid, but you can never know, until it is too late. I am not going to put my life on the line for some vague freedom of speech thing, which some claim they will die defending even if they don't agree with what was said. Hogwash. That is the idealism of youth and the folly of the aged - probably a fallacious belief if ever there was one.

It is so easy to criticize someone or something. Sure mistakes were made in the YOG. Everyone could see it, and not a few poured scorn on the organisers. It was very publicly visible, and embarrassing for a Singapore that prides itself on being efficient, and always planning to the last detail. Perhaps our Kiasu spirit showed up and the MOE soaked up as many tickets as it could so that it could send in the 'army' if and when necessary, to fill the stands.- so some tell me. But what is important is that corrective action was taken, it was effective, just like what our young footballing cubs did to secure the bronze medal after a disastrous outing with the Haiti Football Team.  

So was it worth it? Only time will tell. I asked a youth today if he had volunteered to help out in the YOG. He said 'Yes', and I asked what he got out of it all. He was positive about the experience, especially with the opportunity to mix around and converse with so many different peoples of the world. Somehow I was happy for him but felt a tinge of sadness that I could not go back in time to experience what he has for the past week or so. For our young, who are our future and to learn to co-exist with others - this alone makes it worth it.

Regardless of race

Race, language and religion are very sensitive issues in public (and of late, not so public) discourse in Singapore. Take for example how Pastor Rony Tan was taken to task for 'mocking' Buddhists and Taoists in a sermon delivered in the confines of his own Church, Lighthouse Evangelism. That's really not a public speech, but the government, represented by the Internal Security Department (ISD for short), deemed it necessary to step in to warn Pastor Tan. Witness the latest complaint from an Indian, Mr Ravi Veloo. He was unhappy that DJs from Class 95FM were seemingly 'mocking' Indians by putting on an exaggerated Indian accent (I can only surmise that the DJs were themselves not Indians) in the course of their commentary. It was meant to be funny and lighthearted, but Mr Veloo took exception to it.

What the DJs said exactly is not clear from the news report. Nor did I hear the manner in which the alleged comments were made by the DJs. But Class 95FM does not deny it, stating that '...our DJs do all sorts of funny things on air...", that they are done "...to entertain and appeal to discerning listeners." (ST, 10 April 2010, page A41). Opinion appears to be leaning towards the 'oh, its just for fun' camp. Only two other letter-writers disagreed with Class 95FM. I am taking this unscientific straw-poll from a count of the same Forum page mentioned earlier. It appears that more people agree with Class 95FM - parody the Indians, its just for fun. But an Indian has protested publicly.

This being the case, why hasn't the authorities, the guardians of racial and religious sensitivities in Singapore, among other things, seen fit to haul up Class 95FM for treading on sensitive ground here, the way they hauled up Mr Rony Tan? Is parodying a particular race in a very public media a less serious matter than putting down a religion or two? Have DJs a right to slur a particular race in the course of their job, never mind that they think it is all very funny.

Second, Class 95FM's stance is that their DJs' play on race and language should be seen as 'fun' and 'entertainment' by 'discerning listeners'. Does this mean the Mr Veloo is not a discerning listener? Or the other two who wrote in to express the same sentiment, or the silent lot (whoever they may be) who would agree with Mr Veloo? Should we then not say that the people who listened to what Pastor Tan said about Buddhists and Taoists should be discerning and that it is not the business for the rest, much less the ISD, to criticise? It appears that Class 95FM has conveniently and simply swept the dust under its proverbial carpet. It has not addressed in a fair, sensitive and reasonable manner the concerns of its listeners. It states that Mediacorp, its parent, has left such issues to Class 95FM to, in its own word, 'discern'.

I think it is time for Class 95FM, and its parent, Mediacorp, to re-evaluate its corporate social responsibility, or God forbid, for the ISD to step in?

P.S. Having said all that, my take is that the ISD should never have stepped in over the Rony Tan affair. Because it did, it is now bound to step in on this Class 95FM issue. Otherwise, it opens itself up to the charge of a lack of transparency in the discharge of its public duty - something that the Government of Singapore prides itself on.

Religious fear

Someone reputable made the observation that a Google search on the word "Christianity" will throw up results such as "Is Christianity Absurd?" and "Christianity is Stupid" on the first page of the search results. On the other hand, when 'Islam' is searched, no such negative search results are returned. He speculated that Google might be filtering the results in the fear of offending Muslims.

The sad thing is that everyone is afraid of offending Muslims and Islam. In Singapore, for example, McDonalds' ongoing promotion campaign has replaced the pig in the Chinese Zodiac with an angel (Cupid) for fear of offending Muslims. Muslims consider pigs as unclean and forbids its consumption. Another potentially fatal example is the firebombing of churches in Malaysia - all because the Malaysia High Court ruled that religions other than Islam (i.e. Christianity) have the rights to use the word 'Allah' to refer to God. This is Malaysian Law. Apparently, Muslims in Malaysia do not believe in their own laws. And examples in other lands abound, where people are afraid of offending Muslims in any slight way because of the possibility of reprisals, which may include the loss of innocent lives  and limps. The only people who are not cowed are Danish cartoonist who dare to defy the disciples of Muhammad and are paying for their stance, just as Salman Rushdie did many many years ago.

It is really really sad, that terrorism is now synonymous with Islam. And it is really really sad that an angel had to step in to protect McDonalds. After all McDonalds is a major American institution. Its fear would appear to be well founded given that anything American, wherever it is, is a favourite target of Muslim extremist terrorists. Sure Singapore is pretty ok as far as security goes. We book anyone breaking the law and protect the innocent. For that matter, we throw highly suspicious people behind bars anyway, without due process. And our secret service is usually tip top identifying threats and putting would-be perpetrators behind bars. But there is no stopping people bombing McDonalds elsewhere because of what McDonalds Singapore does, or does not do.

It is really really sad.

Castle in the air

It was James Otis who first said that a "man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle...". Well, I am sad to observe that in Singapore, even the Law acknowledges that this is not necessarily true. There was a recent case where 2 people sued a man for not being dressed at all while he was in his house's kitchen. The inside of this kitchen faced a public area, and as the newspaper account went, these 2 women were walking pass it when they saw the man of the house all naked sitting in his kitchen. Their modesty was so outraged that they sued the man. The Courts agreed with the women and fined the man $2,000 for the indecent exposure and a follow-up act of agression against the same.

So now, I am very careful about being decently dressed while I am at home. All the more so as many public, and might I say also private, apartments face public wakways and other apartments' windows. I once observed that in Hong Kong apartments, you could just reach out with your hands to touch your neighbours' window. Such was the congestion and design of their houses. Nowadays you can say the same about Singapore. At least you could see clearly into someone else's apartment.

Why would anyone move around in his/her apartment dressed to the zeros (as opposed to nines, i.e.?) Well, given Singapore's hot and humid climate, this would be the most sensible thing to do, actually. Nowadays, I sweat even when I remain still, sitting on my sofa chair in the living room. Sometimes, I take off my shirt and go around the house in nothing more than a pair of shorts. How short is my shorts? Well, that is my business. But that is exactly the issue. How much or how little must you have on before you offend the modesty of some prudish women (or men for that matter) and land up in court on the opposite side of the law? Nobody is forcing anyone to look into somebody's castle...err house. You are not forced to be a kay-poh. You choose to be one. If you take a look and see a naked man or woman in the house and am offended by what you see, that is your problem. You shouldn't even contemplate taking the owner of the house to court for exposing whatever. We talk of being tolerant when religion is concerned, but we must be equally tolerant of what the master of the house chooses to do, short of committing a crime. An act of indecency you say? What is indecent to you may be common sense to another, so long as it is done in his castle.

Truth and pragmatism

"We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as...."

This National Day, our 44th, much was made of it. We got as many people as possible to recite that pledge at 8.22pm during the National Day celebrations at the Marina Bay and everywhere else. Many would have reflected on the words in the pledge, what it really meant to them, why, as a student, they had to recite it every school day (except when it poured rain or H1N1 or SARS), and whether they even meant what they say.

It would appear that there are some who are dead serious about it. NMP Viswa Sadasivan spoke about squaring our public policies with the words of the pledge, something that, one would say, is obvious. You say what you mean and mean what you say, so the saying goes.

But, as any citizen and long-time resident would know, this is not exactly how Singapore works. There is what the Americans would call affirmative action - positive discrimination in favour of a particular race in Singapore from the very first day it was founded as an independent nation. So it isn't regardless of race. Maybe language, maybe religion, but certainly not race. The Chinese race is dominant but it has been pragmatic enough to realise that it lives in a sea of countries dominant in a race that is a minority on the island of Singapore. And that therefore, it must pay especial attention to this fact - discriminate, regard the race, in order to move forward toward happiness, prosperity and progress.

Some would disagree, as the honourable NMP does, because we would want to be true to ourselves and what we say. But ironically, we have to be schizophrenic if we want to maintain a semblance of sanity and order. On the other hand, when you think about it, a mother does not neccessarily treat all her children the same. One may born less well endowed. Another may be stronger. So a good parent will discriminate against the stronger in favour of the weaker because she knows that the stronger can fend for himself, whereas the weaker needs more support. Of course the wish is that one day, the weaker one will be able to stand up for himself and find his own place in society, confident, independent and contributing in his own way to others. This is called paternalism - a label that Singapore has had for a very long time. So all these are nothing new. MM Lee Kuan Yew reminded Singaporeans in Parliament on Tuesday.

Is this the best state of affairs? I think few would say 'yes'. Those who say 'no' look for a day when it will be. MM says it will take tens, if not hundreds of years, and even leaves it open if it will ever be reached. Many will agree that we are on a journey, that the journey is more important than the destination, because if and when we reach the destination, then what? Is it even a desirable goal in the first place?

But I must give credit to NMP Sadasivan for bring up the issue. I suppose that is what NMP's are for - to challenge the status quo, push the boundaries and provoke thought, whether one agrees with the proponent or not.

Swine fugitive

Singapore has this slippery relationship with Mas Selamat Kastari. He is a Singapore citizen and yet he wants to wreck Singapore and possibly Singaporeans who are 'suey' enough to be near his targets of destruction. We can understand when a foreigner wants to do that, but a local boy? What has he against Singapore, the land which he adopted from young, albeit it being the choice of his parents? If he hates Singapore that much, why doesn't he remove his entire family to Indonesia, or Malaysia, and let the rest of us get on with our lives instead of having to look over our shoulders all the time and providing him free food and lodging when he is in town, albeit shorn of freedom.

That is why Singapore heaved a collective sigh of relief when news broke that he has been caught by the Malaysia Special Branch in Johore, very near the birth place of his radicalisation. He was reportedly arrested on April 1, 2009. For a moment there, an April Fool's joke flashed across my mind, but I thought it is probably too serious a matter to fool around with. At least, Mr Wong KS and his entire ISD's reputation is at stake. So while we haven't really seen his face since his capture was announced, we believe that he is in police custody. Where exactly he is now held we have the faintest idea. Whether he will be returned to Singapore eventually is not even a foregone conclusion. Actually, a couple of days ago, I had hoped that Influenza A H1N1 would do us the courtesy of infecting him and thus flushing him out. Well, the police beat the swine to it.

You can't always get what you wish for.

RIP

The die has been recast, and the new has become the old and the old the new. AWARE members, many of whom just joined, voted collectively that they want the old AWARE back. The former new have bowed to the will of the majority who voted. Hopefully, we will see the end of this saga which has gripped the nation, young and old, male and female. It was perhaps a good distraction from the constant flow of bad news about the economy. Perhaps it is also timely because we now have to face a potentially deadly enemy - the Influenza A (H1N1) virus, which Singapore is trying its hardest to deny entry to our shores.

Unfortunately, there are hints of the continuing feud amid the threat of a lawsuite, as if the threat against people's lives earlier is not enough. I applaud the new old AWARE committee members, who were brave enough to take up a cause they believed in. Nobody can take that away from them. One may disagree vehemently with their way of going about the whole thing, but through it all, I think they succeeded in drawing much attention to the issue of homosexuality education in Singapore schools. The MOE is looking into this. They may find nothing wrong with AWARE's programme (why would they want to be found with pies on their faces?), but these programmes will face greater scrutiny now from the public, not only from Christians, but from the conservatives among us. And these include Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and even the religiously non-committed, especially those with school-going kids. No one can ever be neutral on this matter.

The Other Page

The AWARE saga has been a long-running one, often characterised, not by women against women, but by sex against sex. For some, it is secularists against Christianity, although there are people of other religions who are just as concerned by the issues - specifically, homosexuality, raised by this group of Christians who now form the core committee of AWARE.

For more than 4 weeks (the whole thing started on 28 March 2009), the issues and personalities have hee'd-and-haw'd. The wounded party - the old guard raising the most voice, if only because the new guard has been inexplicably silent most of the time. This has given occasion for diverse parties to cast aspersions on the valiant new guard who were willing to take action according to their convictions. Even the government has weighed in, warning off would-be religionists (aka Christians) mixing religion with politics.

The wonder of it all is that the voice of the majority has been deafeningly silent. Take a poll and you would probably find that more people in Singapore are against homosexual practices, yet it is the supporters of homosexuality, the old guard of AWARE, for example, that seem to be speaking for the majority. Yes, perhaps people are offended by the way the new guard 'took over' AWARE. If it hasn't been noticed, it was done democratically, according to the rules that the State (the ROC /ACRA ) stipulates, cuts no ice. I can understand. When a rug is pulled under you, you wouldn't stretch out a hand to the 'pullees'. The press hasn't helped either. It is repeatedly using emotive words like 'takeover', "a coup", 'militants', ad-nauseam.

Now religious figures have appeared too, in spite of the point made repeatedly for religions to stay out. But well, I suppose some people think that religion is important in the whole scheme of things. But of course, religious figures are trying to moderate the fight, but in doing so, I wonder if they are not taking a stand themselves?

For me, I don't even have to bring religion into this whole thing in order to express an opinion. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Many people seem to have forgotten how AIDS came about. AIDS is still with us, and it is still incurable, and it is still transmitted via unsafe and unnatural sex practices. Now I believe that any behaviour that puts at risk another's life is wrong, just as you would haul a person to court for trafficking in narcotics. Singapore law even mandates the dead penalty for such people. You may agree or disagree with the death penalty, but in Singapore, it would appear that more rather than less agree with it. And it does seem to be the case that more disagree with homosexuality than those that do, at least in Singapore.

So why are we lambasting those ladies who have the courage of their convictions?

Toasted

I have been watching on the sidelines the election debacle at Aware (Association of Women for Action and Resarch). After all, it is about women and does not in the least affect me. Many have weighed in with an opinion or 2, including PN Balji, editor of the Today newspaper. It is Balji's opinion that the old guard of Aware should not be sour grapes for having many of its people kicked out of the Executive Committee. Instead they should welcome new blood and all. Of course there are those who disagree, pointing out that these 'young turks' are unknowns, unliked, and probably unable. They point out that these newly elected people have not made even a squeek one week after their elections, leading them to wonder if these people are real or not.

Of course people are speculating that the hidden agenda of this new group is to take Aware along the straight and narrow - no to homosexuality and yes to straightlaced religiousity, which is causing concern among the old guard and the more liberal amongst them. Now what is wrong with saying no to homosexuality and being religious? It is a point of view, much as irreligiosity and homosexuality are another set of beliefs? If we tolerate one party to push the homosexual agenda, why can't we let those sitting on the other side of the fence to do so with their beliefs, and respect those views? Whether one side or the other prevails depends on whether and how society supports or rejects either party's agenda.

The old guards should accept that they have been out-maneuvered through the rules they have put in place and maintained for 25 years. If nothing, they left the door open and now they are blaming others for sneaking in? They should kick themselves in their collective behinds instead. If any blame is to be placed, it must rest squarely on the complacent shoulders of the old guard, who, until now, assumed that their way is the only way for women, an obviously arrogant, presumptious and oppressive stance. If this were a military encounter, the old guard will be toast, much like what the British suffered in Singapore at the hands of the Japanese in 1941 - marching down Upper Bukit Timah Road to surrender the flag of the mighty British Empire that had ruled Singapore for more than a hundred years and thereafter to incarceration for the next 4 years, some never living to taste freedom again.

Thank God that they can still do an EOGM. I hope they believe in God because they can do with some divine intervention now. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen.

Balanced Sight

I must congratulate the Singapore Government, and especially the Singapore Malay leaders, in the courageous and sensible stance they are taking over the Israel-Gaza conflict. People the world over, it appears, are up in arms over Israel's disproportionate response to the rockets that have been lobbed into its soil, and continues to do so.

Well, in the first place, there is no such thing as disproportionate response in war. You mean a person fires two rockets at you and you are only entitled to respond with 2 rockets? Well of course not, you say. But then, where do you draw the line? 4 rockets for 2? or 6 rockets? The argument of proportionality simply breaks down in war, where the ultimate objective is the achievement of specific targets - in this case, Israel wants these rockets fired by the Hamas to stop. But the rockets have not stopped, so Israel continues to wage war on the Hamas in Gaza.

But back to our Singapore government. Its stand is the most practical, from an outsider's point of view. We do not get the bombs and rockets on our soil. Those in Southern Israel and Gaza do. So if we sided one over the other, we are expressing a preference that proportionately more rockets land on one side over another. That is what protesters the world over are suggesting whether they are pro-Israel or pro-Hamas. Rather, Singapore is urging for a ceasefire and for both sides and for both to go to the negotiating table as soon as possible. This is probably the most acceptable way, now that the world wants to care about it, to solve the problem now, if not long-term.

Going out on the streets to stage protests and demos may look good, but it does no good for anyone. Boycotting other's products, like what one former leader north of Singapore is mindlessly suggesting, deprives the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and everyone else affected, their honest and decent livelihood, especially in these depressed times.

The best thing to do is to pray for the conflict to end.

Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Michael Connors

Spy vs Spy

The Singapore Police has used CCTV (close-circuit TV) in public places for various purposes. The most 'profitable' of these must be those CCTV cameras that take pictures of a speeding cars. Many drivers have been 'caught' in the process and have had to pay up fines according to the traffic rules broken. And yes, CCTV cameras have also already been put up above street level at busy places such as Boat Quay, Orchard Road, Little India, Raffles City, Suntec City and Geylang (reported in Today - 12 August 2008) - places frequented by tourists, and other pleasure seekers.

Now, the Police is going one step further. It is evaluating cameras that have the ability to recognise faces. The use is obvious. If it can instantly recognise a face - the face of a person wanted by the law, then that information can be conveyed in real-time to a monitoring centre where the police can be informed to take the necessary action - immediately. What can be more efficient than that? We don't need so many police patrolling the streets anymore - these cameras will do the job. And in spite of the reduced number of police on the streets, the island will become even more secure. Singapore's famed low crime rate will be set to become even lower, except...

What/who are the police looking for? If it is for criminals and offenders, then even if these cameras can recognise faces, it isn't going to be very useful, eventually. Criminals and those on the Wanted list will probably learn to alter their physical features - grow a moustache or beard (or attach one for the female), put on spectacles, dye the hair - so much so that even the human eye can no longer recognise the person much less a camera. And experts and users of such cameras have admitted, it isn't very accurate now, though they hope that the accuracy can be improved with time.

This doesn't give me any comfort. First, we shouldn't be spending tax-payers money on technology that works approximately 50% of the time, or even 90% of the time. The mis-identified person can be put through such 'inconvenience' that the police can become the subject of lawsuites - unless the law protects them. Which gives rise to the issue of abuse and privacy concerns. I may not have broken the law, but I don't necessarily want anyone to know that I was at Boat Quay on a particular night at a particular hour. Simply put, it nobody's business, and shouldn't be, unless I have committed a crime. That's my private life, my personal preference. Similarly, I wouldn't like to think that somebody is monitoring my movements anyway and trying to determine who I am. Who is this person who has been given such powers? Would anyone feel comfortable being watched?

Yes, there are security cameras all over the island now - at MRT stations, at shopping malls, at bank lobbies, even at swimming pools (acting as pseudo life-guards). When you don't have that many people who can, or want to, walk around these places to keep an eye on everything, we use technology. That's fair enough. Sometimes, these cameras are pretty useful - like capturing the image of a person or persons who may have committed a crime, or looking for lost kids in the mall. But when facial recognition cameras are aimed at people in public places, well, I think a line needs to be drawn - between a need for security and a need for privacy. Otherwise, we may as well have Big Brother take over the running of our lives.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Rachel Montiel

Like a kid

Don't know what's wrong these days. I feel like I am being herded around like a sheep, or scolded like a child. For heaven's sake, half my life is already over, and I still get people coming up to me to knock my knuckles for doing 'naughty' things. Take the Saturday before last, for instance. I had dinner at Punggol Marina. Very good food and good company - what company can compare to your wife and kids? Anyway, it was belated mother's day, and father's day was coming up, so one good meal for two occasions was a 'steal'. The Marina provides private bus transport in and out of the place. I don't drive, so while waiting for the bus outside the lobby, I took a photograph of the family. Lo and behold, the driver of the private bus, which had just arrived, came up to me and told me off. He said that photography was forbidden on the Marina grounds, and continued berating me for not 'obeying' the rules and that if I didn't believe him, he'd march me over to the sign that said so. I had kept silent all the while I was being 'reprimanded', but I can only take so much. I gave him a piece of my mind. Fortunately, no blows were exchanged - it was that bad and it spoilt the evening for us.

Then last Friday, I visited the PC Show in Suntec City. I had reached the floor via escalator that overlooks the third level exhibits. I made sure I stepped aside so as not to block people who might be coming up the escalator as I looked down at the exhibits. Along came a security guard who told me to move off as I was blocking people coming up the escalator. Annoyed, I asked him if anyone was coming up the escalator (there were non, not even a mouse) and therefore who I was being accused of blocking? The crowds on Friday wasn't as bad as that on Saturday - I was there both days. I was annoyed because I thought I had been considerate enough to check that I wasn't an obstruction but someone else imagined that I was an obstruction. That was rubbing me the wrong way and I couldn't let it pass. I gave the guard a piece of my mind. I challenged him to show me the non-existent crowd. I don't like to question authority, especially when someone has been tasked to keep the path free. But for heaven's sake don't tell people that they are an obstruction when they clearly are not. I can understand the rationale behind this man's instructions, just that I cannot tolerate being told to do something when that specific rationale doesn't exist, at least at that moment. A case of reading off a prepared script? Come on, the public deserves better.

All of which goes to show that our service people still have a long way to go, service-wise. Tact is certainly not in their vocabulary, bulldoze is probably more familiar to them. And they wouldn't think twice about offending people who are obviously out contributing to the economy (and, indirectly, their existence as drivers or security guards). If I come across as arrogant, then pardon me. But I do not deserve to be treated like a 10-year old kid.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Bianca Meyer geb. Bollmeier

Bar none

Truth be told, I have never stepped into a pub, well, at least not those in Singapore. Occasionally when I am overseas and I get brought to one, I'd oblige. But some people are not happy with our local watering hole, St James Power Station's discriminatory practice of allowing foreigners into its premises without collecting the $20 cover while locals have to ante up the amount. This is tantamount to subsidizing foreigners' hours of happiness. And the reason for this freebie? St James says that this will add to the cosmopolitan nature of the crowd, which will make it a more interesting place for everyone. Granted, St James is well within its right to have this discriminatory policy in order to achieve a business objective and be different from other watering holes, but still, in egalitarian Singapore, this stands out as a sore thumb.

One can go as far as to say that these foreigners are prostituting themselves, without their knowing it. They are used to attract other people who pay for the privilege of being in the pub's premises, people who perhaps appreciate the cosmopolitan nature of the place and are willing to pay, a place where there are ready Ang Mo's to whet their appetite for a conversation and perhaps something beyond. Well, some locals are not too happy on learning this (it is surprising that they only realise this now as St James has been in business for some time now) but the foreigners insist that they don't really get a freebie as they HAVE to buy the drinks (no, you can't bring your own). There is thus no difference - you get a free drink for paying for entry, but somehow, it is natural to feel a difference, a feeling that some people are treated 'more fairly' than others.

Whatever, I leave it to the pub to set their policies and run their business. Nobody can say that it is wrong until people start to stop coming. And locals can choose to continue to give St James their patronage if they see value in it. And foreigners can choose to continue to be made used of to attract the crowd, or not. Ultimately, its all a business, not an egalitarian society.

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Kristine Kisky

Lost cause

Really, I don't understand what Mr Chee Soon Juan is doing. If he wants to be an opposition politician, that's his prerogative. If he wants to speak out against the Singapore government, that is his right. If he wants to criticize unjust policies, that would be a good thing, provided it is constructive. But why is he on a crusade to nail MM Lee and PM Lee? What is he trying to prove? But of course some would say the Lee's sued first, so Chee is just defending. But his way of defending is very offending. Unfortunately, whatever he is accusing the Lees of is really old hat. We have heard all that before, oh, since 20 years ago. Why is he trotting out the same old tired accusations? What is he trying to prove? Who is he trying to convince?

The foreign press will likely pick up this story and parrot the same old tired line of the Lee dictatorship, the Lee dynasty, the lack of transparency, and all that. But you know, Singaporeans are not stupid. They may have a lot of complaints and write that a lot can be improved on this island and in this Singapore society. I often ventilate through this blog. But I do not, for one moment, think that the Singapore government is as puppety as people like Chee Soon Juan & Co, have make them out to be.

Singapore is not heaven on earth, although I have heard someone say that some Africans call Singapore God's gift to humanity, whatever that means. Mr Chee has hardly earned my respect and I am still not persuaded that he deserves my vote the next time the elections come around and he stands in the constituency I live in. Nor has he convinced me of his cause, whatever that is.  I think the first thing that a politician should do is to win people's hearts and not engage in tired old accusations about the Lees and the government that has no bearing on their livelihood and well-being. Chee Soon Juan should take a leaf out of MM Lee's approach to politics in the years leading up to the formation of self-government in the 1950s - win the hearts and minds of people and not seek pity because a 100 pound gorilla is bearing down on him.

If a politician and pretender to the government needs pity, who will pity the people?

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Paul Anderson

Free Burma