Post-election reflection #GE2020

The mood in the ruling PAP has changed somewhat. The PAP government's PM, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, has now recognised an official Leader of the Opposition and offered the position to Mr Pritam Singh, the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party (WP). This is as it should be. By so doing, it is giving due recognition to the electorates' sentiment that they want a more participative government, not one ruled by a few whose decisions are not to be questioned. This has been the pattern of behaviour among the 4G leadership. I have seen the bullying tactics of the PAP government in and out of Parliament, apparently without realising that the WP MPs' were in Parliament because they were invited to sit there by real voters, real people who live among us. I remember some of these:

1. Presidential "Election"

2. PAP Govt bullied WP over Aljunied-Hougang Town Council matters

3. MRT rail problems

4. Explosion of Public Housing (esp. in Sengkang and Punggol)

5. Population/Crowdedness

6. Mismanagement of COVID-19 (Dorms)

Hopefully, Parliament will be a more civil place where serious issues are discussed and the views of all Singaporeans taken into account. Matters not effectively dealt with in Parliament will spill over into the ballot box. We don't need a bulldozer which act as if its decisions cannot be questioned, and the Opposition's every view is ridiculed. I think this may be one of the reasons for the PAP government's reduced vote-share. That said, the PAP government has had a resounding show of support from the majority of Singaporeans by any global standard, and rightly so because it has always delivered "the goods". The only issue is whether these are the only goods that people want delivered and the manner in which they were delivered. 

I hope I am right that Singapore has just seen a generational change into a new normal, where we have a strong government and an effective Opposition in Parliament from now on. This will make for a more mature decision-making process which will work to the benefit of all Singaporeans.

Majulah Singapura! 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-pm-lee-congratulates-wp-for-strong-performance-12923594

Explosive news #SG2020

News media just went to town with a report that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) is investigating allegations that a WP candidate in the Sengkang GRC team had written racist and religious materials on social media. These views were expressed as recently as May 2020 and another in 2018. 

If true, then WP's campaign is in real jeopardy. On the other hand, the PAP may have sensed that the ground in Sengkang GRC is not sweet at all, given the popularity of the WP's A/Prof Jamus Lim. This can be viewed as a desperate move by the PAP to sink the WP's bid. If one of those remarks were made two years ago, and it is a serious breach of Singapore's strict laws on race and religion, why bring it up only now? Well, of course it is a timely tactic by the PAP to caste doubt on the WP candidate, and with it, the WP team contesting the Sengkang GRC.

But who knows? Let's see how the matter develops over the next couple of days.

Update:

Raeesh Khan apologises.

Music to the ears

Minister Tan Chuan Jin justified legalising online gambling, saying that it is a growing activity and anyway, cannot be stopped entirely. Thus it would make sense to bring a part of this dark activity into the light so that it provides people with a guilt-free and legal avenue to engage in this erstwhile illegal activity. This decriminalising of online gambling in Singapore, with certain controls and conditions, will wipe out a criminal activity in one fell swoop. That's the main argument anyway, not to mention that it will increase government revenue from this once illicit activity. Minister Tan went into quite pedantic detail in an interview regarding this matter with Channel NewsAsia. I will not repeat the points, for by Minister Tan, and against by the Worker's Party and the National Council of Churches.

I would just like to add that the government, by the same argument and logic, should legalise the consumption of marijuana (cannabis) in Singapore. It is underground right now, and attracts draconian penalties when caught. In spite of all efforts to eliminate the trafficking of this drug and its use (if no one uses it, no one will traffic it, right?) remains unabated - the same as online gambling. After all, some countries have decriminalise the possession of the drug, including Australia, Austria and the US (in some States) as have some countries online gambling. But I suspect that the Singapore government will not do so anytime soon (or ever), never mind that the logic behind the easing of restriction on online gambling is exactly the same for consumption of marijuana.

I would suggest that the logic and argument that has been brought to bear on justifying the legalisation of online gambling has been quite selective and convinces no one except those for which it is music to the ears.

Fact, fake and opinion

Mr Chan Chun Sing, Government Whip in the current Parliament, and Member for the Group Representation Constituency of Tanjong Pagar, said that the motion by the Workers' Party to amend the NCMP scheme to transfer the seat vacated by best loser in the last General Election, Lee Li Lian, to the losing candidate of its own choice "must reflect the truth".  This goes without saying. How can Parliament even entertain the thought of passing a motion that are lies? We are, after all, not a banana republic. Yes, the truth must be stated. But the amendments to the motion introduced by Mr Chan is hardly the whole truth, or the truth was not the only thing that was reflected. It contains, yes, some truth (more accurately, fact), but also opinion and innuendo. Consider the amendment that was inserted to the motion:

“...regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers’ Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share (FACT), contrary to the expressed will of the voters (OPINION + ASSUMPTION + INNUENDO). And that the WP supports this political manoeuvre  to take full advantage of the NCMP seat (OPINION + INNUENDO), even as its secretary-general criticises NCMPs as just duckweed on the water of the pond (FACT + INNUENDO)."

Given the many lawyers of high standing in the PAP ranks, it is regrettable that the party voted in this amendment as is. The Opposition and NCMPs (who are all WP members) wisely abstained over this vague and politically charged amendment to the motion.

As the saying goes, "All is fair in love and war", even innuendos and fiction disguised as fact and the "truth". tsk tsk tsk.

Murky Broth

Of late, for every 10 SMS messages that I have received, 8 o f then begins with the qualifier <ADV>. Needless to say, I have become very annoyed with these unsolicited messages. SMS is not like Email. Its something that you would want to check in on because it is more immediate and the person who sends it probably wants to get your immediate attention. Nowadays when I fish out my phone to check my SMS, I often only do one thing - delete the SMS. Its ridiculous. I have to pay to receive something that I never asked for. Some might even call this cheating. Its really getting on my nerves, the same reason why I NEVER answer my handphone calls when the number is one I do not recognise. Experience tells me that 10/10, that call is a telemarketing call, or a call to sell my house, or someone suggesting that I protect myself, my family, my house, my car, and yes, even my dog. Now I have nothing against people selling insurance. They perform a vital advisory service and I have benefitted from such advice. If on the off chance it is a call from someone I know, that person will call back. But this SMS spam is not so easy to deal with. You don't have spam filters that email systems have that will send them to the trash bin immediately. You become a virtual hostage to unwanted and uncalled for messages. But what is upsetting is that  it appears to have the blessings of the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). As far as I can tell, everyone except the self-interested stakeholder businesses are up in arms and crying foul.

The point is that the PDPC, as CASE puts it, "has back-pedalled and diluted the intention of the DNC (Do Not Call) registry". The PDPC has now allowed for SMS and Fax messages sent by businesses, or whatever entity, to bypass the DNC restrictions so long as there is an "ongoing relationship" between the business and its customers. How does one define "ongoing relationship" anyway? If we adopt the PDPC's understanding of the term, it can be used to define ANY number of transactions between a business and it customers, even "one-night stands". It will be no stretch of the imagination that a business can stalk a customer simply because the PDPC has given its blessings. The PDPC says that an organisation that breach any of the data protection provisions in the PDPA may be liable for a financial penalty of an amount not exceeding $1m. But how can such violation be proved and acted upon if the exceptions and exemptions can be made post-PDPA?

I am in no way suggesting that businesses that engage in direct marketing be banned. By all means communicate with your customers in whatever way that customer chooses provided that he has explicitly and clearly given consent. Now, anything beyond that is ambiguous, and laws are not meant to be ambiguous, are they? It appears that in Singapore, when the government jumps into bed with businesses, a murky broth can surface, to the extreme discomfort of the people to whom it has given its word to care and protect.

Face it

Is this the face of Anonymous a.k.a the Messiah?

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-haul-suspected-hackers

Yes, he/she/it remains anonymous till today behind his/her/its bald pate.

Suspect body of work

Here it goes again, another sordid account of sex and lies rolled into a case of corruption in "squeaky clean" Singapore. This time, a law professor stands accused of favouring a student through an illicit sexual relationship. The student reportedly gained from the tryst through better grades in the professor's classes. The Court is now called upon to decide if there is any truth to the allegations.

Once again, the CPIB's "star" witness, the student in question, has given evidence in Court that contradicts the statements she gave to the CPIB during its investigations and upon which the same body has proceeded to charge another with corruption. Why again? Because in another case of corruption with illicit sex, CPIB "star" witness, a Ms Cecilia Sue, also offered contradictory evidence in Court - accounts that did not square with the statements she gave the same CPIB officers.

I am leaving the Courts to decide, as I must, the merits of each of these cases. But my question is, what is wrong with the CPIB? Surely having its star witness perjuring themselves in Courts once is an aberration, but when it happens again, you begin to wonder how CPIB obtains the written evidence upon which a case is made. From what I have learnt so far from the press, it appears that such evidence may not have been given entirely voluntarily, which explains differing accounts proffered in a Court of Law and the CPIB statements. For the second time in as many months, CPIB has had to decide if it is going to impeach the evidence of its main witness. The greater question is if CPIB has not lost its credibility as an investigating body that aims to uncover corrupt practices. Can CPIB bring another case to court without the same thing happening again? The likelihood, going by the two recent cases, suggests that it is not high.

We shall soon know as there are two pending cases that will be brought to Court in the coming weeks, that of the corruption cases of Mr Lim Sin Pang, formerly chief of the SCDF, and Rev Kong Hee of the City Harvest Church. Well, maybe not the latter as it does not involve sex. But one never knows.

Mind your own IT business

Singaporean, or at least those politically-aware, would have seen it coming. A reportedly shell company owned entirely by the PAP buying up a software system that was developed with tax-payer money for the sake of maintaining a software system that experts have judged as "obsolete and unmaintainable" defies every rule of business logic. But let me not be accused of repeating anything libelous. After reading through whatever is there on the internet regarding the AIM-AHTC saga, both from AHTC and AIM, I came away with the distinct impression that AHTC has not explained the situation clearly and fully, and AIM has not been convincing at all with its explanation.

This is why the blog posts on this subject by Mr Alex Au on his Yawning Bread blog has not only captured the attention of the social media, it has been vetted through a fine toothcomb by the PM's lawyers, who have determined that parts of the posts are libelous and threatened to sue. Truth be told, I don't read Yawning Bread at all, but due to the publicity that has been stirred up, I have also begun my "fine toothcombing" of the posts, some of which are quite lengthy and appears to have been a product of extensive research. Dr Teo Ho Pin's explanation (defence) of the issues raised by both WP's Sylvia Lim, bloggers and social media, pales in comparison. To me, his explanation raised more questions that it answered. Quite obviously, he has never been an IT professional, but trying to explain an IT business. It's like expecting Ms Saw to run a train company, no?

I do not propose to jump into the fray to add my 2 cents worth, for it is only 2 cents after all. I have no first hand contact with either party that I can add meaningfully to the unfolding events. The only thing I want to say is that it appears that the PAP has become rather petty of late. It used to be that they were focused on winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, never mind that similar libel laws have been used in the past. I don't know about Mr Au's political affiliations, but he appears to be a private citizen expressing his opinion publicly in a medium that even PAP stalwarts and Ministers have embraced with a vengeance. And anyone who have read those posts will come away with the impression that it is not all rant. Is this precisely the reason why he is being sued, that he is being too honest? (Brazen is another word to substitute for honest).

Unfortunately, those who are late to the "game" will never be able to judge for themselves as the offending post has been removed from the blog. How to have a conversation like that?

Read AsiaOne for reports around this saga. Then trawl the internet for the details.
Is this AIM or is that AIM?

Hold the money

Listen up, the identity of the whore who set up 44 men, and counting in sleepless Singapore is...

Cannot tell or I will be fined S$5,000. Serious.

I'd rather save it and pay the teenage whore that money...

Hey, last I heard, she is older than 18 now. That means a visit to her bordello wouldn't get you hauled up to Court. Now you don't need to squat in jail after squatting on... Its open season if her identity is revealed.

When you think of tainting (ahem) the witness, you'd understand why the Prosecutors and the Judge find it a horrifying prospect to reveal her identity in public at this time. Thus the gag order even for the public, I suppose.  Bad news travel fast. Bad and dirty news even faster.

There are many in Singapore who are still sleepless.

Leaky Hypocrites

And I thought that wikileaks was an American problem. Apparently not. Since the leak about Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew's view of North Korea's Dear Leader, there have been further juicy leaks of Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affair's officers view of India, Malaysia and Japan, You can't deny that these news sell, and embarrass at the same time. In a sense, it titillates our baser instincts to uncover the way top leaders describe each other. It certainly is not gentlemanly talk, but that's the point. These conversations are not meant to be available to the public, so our protagonists let fly with colourful phrases about each other. I am sure that for every colour adverb used by person on another, at least another in like is made in return. You let loose under cover of confidence. Its fair game.

And aren't we all like this anyway? We say the damnest things about somebody behind their backs but are very civil in front of him/her. And we do so not merely out of spite, but to express our most honest views to the people closest to us because they know where we are comng from and the circumstances leading to those views (the context). And, truth be told, it is very useful communication. I am not trying to apologise for anyone, just that I agree that certain things are best left unsaid in public.

Which is why I don't support the growing chorus of voices in support of wikileaks. If you do, then can you also say what you say in private in public the next tine, and every other time? If not, then don't be hypocrites.

Unkindest Cut

When all is said and done, nobody, except perhaps the radicals (and I don't mean the Muslims), would disagree that Mas Selamat Kastari's (MSK) relative - his brother, sis-in-law and niece, deserve to go to jail.

Whatever is said, that perhaps sympathy and blood ties are too strong for the niece not be have done anything to help MS, she is guilty as charged. Certainly she wouldn't have wanted to turn MSK in, but to disguise a known fugitive for his escape? There is certainly more than it being a lapse of judgement. There is deliberate will and action to condone the actions of MSK (he escaped from a state prison) and sympathise with his cause. What does that make her if not a closet terrorists cut from the same clothe as MSK?

I wonder how many are still out there in Singapore, going around like normal people, perhaps even teaching in some government school in Singapore, but deep down, are just waiting for the opportunity to disrupt innocent people's lives, all in the name of religion.

Riddle me, Batman

Revelation of how close relatives of Mas Selamat Kastari (MSK) helped him eventually to escape to Malaysia 2 years ago certainly raised more questions that it answered. The authorities are not willing to reveal more at this moment as to how MSK walked all the way, in bright orange prison garb, from Whitely Road to Tampines Housing Estate in the eastern end of the island, amidst the island-wide alert of his escape. It's surreal. Certainly great material for several Prison Break episodes.

What is on everyone's mine is: why our normally efficient and effective police never thought to search and monitor MSK's close relatives? Given MSK's apparent familiarity with where exactly his brother stays, one cannot but speculate that he has been in contact with these relatives until recently (i.e. during prison visits perhaps) before his escape. How else do you explain the quickness and purpose that MSK headed for this relative's house half way across Singapore island? How would he know who would be home and who would be away, as news reports, citing the account given by the authorities, would have us believe? I hardly visit some of my relatives, perhaps once a year, and then only during Chinese New Year. Truth be told, I don't exactly know where they live, and when they will be at home. It's normal practice to call ahead so we don't end up facing an empty house. MS must have powers of telepathy beyond us mortals, if we are to believe what we have read so far.

I am not calling anyone a liar. I am sure that some things need to be kept confidential, but so far, what has been revealed has tended to insult my intelligence. Or maybe I am not that intelligent. But I leave that to the more intelligent people (authorities?) among us.

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.

Swift Vandal

Shame on SMRT, people say. But this is judgment after the fact. It is always easy to pass judgment in hindsight. But when SMRT was caught with its pants down, you can't stop people from commenting and generally giving their 2 cents' worth. Neither can I, as this blog post shows. But then, we are not alone. Government MPs have sounded their displeasure and unease over the fact that a vital and critical  installation (the train system) has been compromised in broad daylight, though in this instance, no harm has befallen anyone. Now the SMRT is also being lambasted for not alerting the authorities of the act of vandalism until 2 days later. I suppose SMRT wanted to cover its behind and pull up its pants without anyone noticing so that they can quietly resolve the matter themselves. But alas for SMRT, it is not to be, no thanks to an observant boy whose curiously got the better of him by taking a video of the train in all its vandalized glory and putting it up on Youtube to boot.

But true to its reputation, the police has been swift in its action and has apprehended the alleged vandal, one Oliver Fricker, though through no fault of theirs, his alleged collaborator, Mr Lloyd Dane Alexander, has flown the coop, apparently to Hong Kong. I think both of these alleged perpetrators must be well aware of the consequences of their actions if they are caught, as the Michael Fay incident many years ago has shown. Now Mr Fricker will get a taste of the rotan - caning on the behind. Once canned, the person would not be able to sit down for a time, so painful is the punishment, so I have been told. But them Michael Fay survived it and went on to commit crime again. Mr Fricker will perhaps be comforted by this fact should he face the executioner who will administer three of the best (or however many the judge decides is fair punishment).

More importantly, as many have pointed out, is the ease with which a vital installation has been compromised. How did this happen since Singapore has heightened its security around the island after 911? Well, the answer probably can lie with the person(s) who is now in the middle of the whole thing - Mr Fricker himself. The authorities might want to tap on his expertise to review the security set up of all vital installations around the island. They say that a hacker knows best how to prevent the act of hacking, so Mr Fricker should be engaged as a security consultant in order to effectively tighten points of weakness.  Given that he didn't cause significant damage - he was probably practicing his art, canning should be just about enough punishment. He can then be sentenced additionally to be a consultant on Corrective Work Order. This will be a win-win for everyone. We give him 3 of the best, and he advise us on never having to give another 3 to some copycat later.

But of course I am not the judge, so don't take my word for it.

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.

Juvenile 2

I wonder why, of late, government or government-related agencies and organisations are becoming so juvenile? First there was Singapore Tourism Board's (STB) contribution to the Singapore Pavilion at this year's Shanghai World Expo - Liu Lian Xiao Xing, or Durian Star - a totally juvenile contribution. So much so that I speculated that STB had an extremely small budget, so smaller that it could only engage a juvenile (who else) to come up with the drawing. Now, there is the equally juvenile but more sinister act of vandalising the much venerated Singpost mailboxes, with the total blessing of no less than Singpost itself. This cause such an uproar that I got to learn of it on the printed and broadcast press and the internet. Otherwise, I would be non the wiser because only 6 of these mailboxes were deliberately vandalised, none of which were located near where I lived.

One wonders if Singapore is not going overboard in celebrating its youth (Youth Olympics, youthful swimming champs from the SEA Games, etc. etc.) that even government agencies, once the bastion of propriety, order and seriousness, have surrendered its top executive minds to juveniles. If so, that is a abdication of responsibility for which taxpayers ultimately foot the bill - these executives' pay, the police's pay and the cost to societal peace. Somebody in SingPost should probably resign to take responsibility for this serious and negligent oversight, for we, the tax-paying public expect more of people in such high places. Merely organising a press conference to explain and apologize may not be enough. But of course, this is not the Singapore culture - it will happen in Japan, and maybe in the US, but Singapore officials are apparently a protected lot. Well, ok, let me not be-labour this because somebody's rice bowl is on the line...

But, much as our young should step out to learn and lead, the older among us should not surrender our prerogative to guard against ill-conceived ideas.

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.

The Chairwoman

Singaporeans should be shameful for the way it treats its 'foreign talent' in sports. All its major sports - soccer, swimming and until recently, table-tennis, are coached by foreigners. Yet in a year when Singapore has achieved most in the sports arena - Olympic silver medals, 5th place finish in the Beijing Olympics, 1st place in the Paralympics swimming, it couldn't find a coach who had stood out. I don't know what yardstick is being used, but it appears that this yardstick is a tad too long for anyone to measure up to.

It can be argued, very strongly, that the coach of the year (COY) award should have gone to the coaches of sportsman/sportswoman who did Singapore proud in the Olympics, indisputably the most prestigious and the toughest sports arena in the world. Yet all of them have been found wanting. If so, why don't we just sack all of them and find more worthy people to fill their shoes. After all, Singapore taxpayers' money is being used to fund sports in Singapore. Singapore taxpayers have a right to ask why we are using sub-standard coaches to drive excellence in Singapore sports.

But the most shameful thing is that an aggrieved coach, Mr Liu Guodong, is in town to seek an apology from Mdm Lee Bee Wah, President of the STTA, for allegedly slighting him in remarks explaining why he wasn't nominated for the COY award. This in spite of the fact that he coached Singapore's Olympic Table-Tennis team to silver medals - the first in 48 years. Yet, in the first meeting, she reportedly didn't turn up. Some officials appeared instead. I don't know what was said in that meeting, and whether the discussion was useful, but it does look to me as if the STTA is acting like the Communist Part of China -that 'Chairwoman' Lee BW deigns it beneath her to meet with a 'discredited' coach. Liu flew in to Singapore to LBW's doorstep. The least she could have done was to meet him, if only for old times' sake? Well, I shouldn't drag China into this, but Mr Liu is from China , after all. And for the Chinese, 'face' is important, and credibility is important in any leader, as our top political leaders in the PAP have stressed and demonstrated countless times since the country's independence.

So I am not surprised at Mr Liu's incredible quest (I hope it is not an impossible quest) to clear his name. It is now up to Chairwoman Lee to show that she is deserving of everyone's respect and support, from all sportsmen/women and coaches down to the taxpaying public, by facing Mr Liu and explaining herself, and/or otherwise, apologise PERSONALLY.

Personally, I think she and her management team in the STTA should step down for bringing disrepute to the Table-tennis fraternity in Singapore and diminishing the achievements of the silver-medal winning Olympic team by refusing to nominate their coach for the COY award. A wrong step here and she may even cost the PAP a GRC, eventually. For a fresh politician, nothing is worse than becoming unpopular for the wrong reasons.

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.

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?