Why you should not cancel your DBS cards because of Josie Lau
Led by Mr Wang, it seems quite a few people are cancelling their DBS cards and services.
I actually think that this move is neither justified nor prudent.
It is not justified because DBS is not in any way involved with Josie Lau's private life. Over last year's Focus on the Family brouhaha, a case could be made for boycotting DBS, because it was a corporate decision (even if it was silly to assume that everything a religious group did would be religiously-tainted), but what Josie Lau does in her free time should not concern DBS.
Furthering the logic of endangering the jobs of people whose actions you disagree with, one could do the same to people whose opinions you disagreed with (e.g. racists, misogynists, homophobes and the whole shebang) and in so doing, effectively criminalise thoughtcrime (in contrast, Operation Leper has the lesser aim of ensuring the group of 9 are not "appointed to future leadership posts in politics, voluntary/social welfare groups, and NGOs"). Ironically one could imagine, not so long ago, that it was those who were seen as gay or gay-friendly who would have their jobs threatened, but the moral here seems to be that it's okay as long as you're the one doing it - and not the one it's being done to.
Furthermore, a boycott is a very blunt tool indeed. If I oppose Israel's colonization of the West Bank, is a boycott of Israeli products the best way for me to express my displeasure, especially considering the wonky Israeli political system which gives minority parties a lot of political power (i.e. a majority of Israelis might be in favour of dismantling settlements)? In the urge to make a political point, lots of innocent people are affected; this puts me in mind of the old file sharing site Putfile (which seems to have been taken over by ebaumsworld) which, in protest of hanging, blocked Singaporean IP addresses from accessing it until "any positive move from the government of Singapore towards abolition of hanging as an execution method".
Meanwhile, it is not prudent because it just makes gays and gay-supporters look bad - spiteful and angry, and plays into the hands of the anti-gay lobby.
Even worse, the attempt to force a clash between work and personal life is a spectacular own goal for the cause of civil society since, if enough people cancel their DBS cards and services, DBS and other organizations are going to enact even stricter policies about their staff serving various causes outside the organization, even in their personal capacities.
The end result?
Gays and gay-supporters look bad and the pool of individuals active in civil society shrinks (as if it wasn't already small enough)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.95
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Civil Engagement in a Civil Society
Civil Engagement in a Civil Society
A lot has happened over the AWARE saga, and because of exams, I have not been able to do a commentary on it. Not that there would be a lot for me to say, every possible angle has been thoroughly canvassed by the bloggosphere and media. It is really quite clear that I do not support the new exco after them using such shady methods and knowing their background. I do not find my confidence in them bolstered after the revelation that Dr Thio Su-Mien is behind it. I have already had a run-in with her daughter, Dr Thio Li-Ann before, as some people would remember - and while I disagreed with her and found her remarks in parliament insulting, I was one of the first ones to stand up and say that she should not be fired or receive death threats because of what she said. My principles, or stance, have not changed. I believe, and still believe, in civil, dignified debate, not name-calling or personal attacks.
So, whoever send that death threat to the new exco - cut it out. You are making us look bad. While I have strong doubts about the veracity of the said death threat, or even any real intention, I am going to treat it as real for the purposes of this discussion, and repeat, once again, that no one, NO ONE, should be doing anything remotely despicable. Having said that (and this is directed at you, new exco) receiving death threats does not make your cause a noble one (Harvey Milk got death threats on a regular basis, and I doubt you are going to agree his cause is noble).
Secondly, as to Josie Lau’s job. I have absolutely no idea what DBS is doing to her position, and frankly, I don’t care. While the revelation that she is the one who led DBS-FOTF linkup is infuriating but not surprising, I believe that issue has already been dealt with and buried. DBS has learned its lesson. But this new saga really has nothing to do with them. I know some of us already cancelled our DBS accounts after the FOTF saga - and now there is a new call from Mr Wang to cancel our DBS cards so that Josie can get fired.
I have to say, this is not a strategy I am comfortable with, or will ever endorse. Boycotting a business that might support an anti-gay cause is one thing, but trying to target it at a person is not acceptable unless she’s a mass murderer/fraudster etc.
Josie is as much as human being as the rest of us, and she has a family to support too - two kids, in fact. She has the full right to have a career and do things outside this career, and express her own views. As do any of us. How would any of you like to be fired because you supported a gay cause? What if all the fundies called in and boycotted the business/company you worked for, just to get you fired? Her job performance has nothing to do with her beliefs - DBS can decide whether to keep her on or not.
I will not, and cannot, endorse such a blunt tool tactic. That’s going too far. Not to mention it will only backfire on us, because we are going to look petty and undignified. Let’s try to do justice to YawningBread’s assertion that we are a mature bunch on this issue.
Not to mention I do not want to hear the new exco play the victim again. It is kind of getting tiring, really. Morever, when they play the victim, they avoid the real issues and hard questions. They are already good at that, lets not give them more opportunities.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.93
Civil Engagement in a Civil Society
Civil Engagement in a Civil Society
A lot has happened over the AWARE saga, and because of exams, I have not been able to do a commentary on it. Not that there would be a lot for me to say, every possible angle has been thoroughly canvassed by the bloggosphere and media. It is really quite clear that I do not support the new exco after them using such shady methods and knowing their background. I do not find my confidence in them bolstered after the revelation that Dr Thio Su-Mien is behind it. I have already had a run-in with her daughter, Dr Thio Li-Ann before, as some people would remember - and while I disagreed with her and found her remarks in parliament insulting, I was one of the first ones to stand up and say that she should not be fired or receive death threats because of what she said. My principles, or stance, have not changed. I believe, and still believe, in civil, dignified debate, not name-calling or personal attacks.
So, whoever send that death threat to the new exco - cut it out. You are making us look bad. While I have strong doubts about the veracity of the said death threat, or even any real intention, I am going to treat it as real for the purposes of this discussion, and repeat, once again, that no one, NO ONE, should be doing anything remotely despicable. Having said that (and this is directed at you, new exco) receiving death threats does not make your cause a noble one (Harvey Milk got death threats on a regular basis, and I doubt you are going to agree his cause is noble).
Secondly, as to Josie Lau’s job. I have absolutely no idea what DBS is doing to her position, and frankly, I don’t care. While the revelation that she is the one who led DBS-FOTF linkup is infuriating but not surprising, I believe that issue has already been dealt with and buried. DBS has learned its lesson. But this new saga really has nothing to do with them. I know some of us already cancelled our DBS accounts after the FOTF saga - and now there is a new call from Mr Wang to cancel our DBS cards so that Josie can get fired.
I have to say, this is not a strategy I am comfortable with, or will ever endorse. Boycotting a business that might support an anti-gay cause is one thing, but trying to target it at a person is not acceptable unless she’s a mass murderer/fraudster etc.
Josie is as much as human being as the rest of us, and she has a family to support too - two kids, in fact. She has the full right to have a career and do things outside this career, and express her own views. As do any of us. How would any of you like to be fired because you supported a gay cause? What if all the fundies called in and boycotted the business/company you worked for, just to get you fired? Her job performance has nothing to do with her beliefs - DBS can decide whether to keep her on or not.
I will not, and cannot, endorse such a blunt tool tactic. That’s going too far. Not to mention it will only backfire on us, because we are going to look petty and undignified. Let’s try to do justice to YawningBread’s assertion that we are a mature bunch on this issue.
Not to mention I do not want to hear the new exco play the victim again. It is kind of getting tiring, really. Morever, when they play the victim, they avoid the real issues and hard questions. They are already good at that, lets not give them more opportunities.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.93
A lot has happened over the AWARE saga, and because of exams, I have not been able to do a commentary on it. Not that there would be a lot for me to say, every possible angle has been thoroughly canvassed by the bloggosphere and media. It is really quite clear that I do not support the new exco after them using such shady methods and knowing their background. I do not find my confidence in them bolstered after the revelation that Dr Thio Su-Mien is behind it. I have already had a run-in with her daughter, Dr Thio Li-Ann before, as some people would remember - and while I disagreed with her and found her remarks in parliament insulting, I was one of the first ones to stand up and say that she should not be fired or receive death threats because of what she said. My principles, or stance, have not changed. I believe, and still believe, in civil, dignified debate, not name-calling or personal attacks.
So, whoever send that death threat to the new exco - cut it out. You are making us look bad. While I have strong doubts about the veracity of the said death threat, or even any real intention, I am going to treat it as real for the purposes of this discussion, and repeat, once again, that no one, NO ONE, should be doing anything remotely despicable. Having said that (and this is directed at you, new exco) receiving death threats does not make your cause a noble one (Harvey Milk got death threats on a regular basis, and I doubt you are going to agree his cause is noble).
Secondly, as to Josie Lau’s job. I have absolutely no idea what DBS is doing to her position, and frankly, I don’t care. While the revelation that she is the one who led DBS-FOTF linkup is infuriating but not surprising, I believe that issue has already been dealt with and buried. DBS has learned its lesson. But this new saga really has nothing to do with them. I know some of us already cancelled our DBS accounts after the FOTF saga - and now there is a new call from Mr Wang to cancel our DBS cards so that Josie can get fired.
I have to say, this is not a strategy I am comfortable with, or will ever endorse. Boycotting a business that might support an anti-gay cause is one thing, but trying to target it at a person is not acceptable unless she’s a mass murderer/fraudster etc.
Josie is as much as human being as the rest of us, and she has a family to support too - two kids, in fact. She has the full right to have a career and do things outside this career, and express her own views. As do any of us. How would any of you like to be fired because you supported a gay cause? What if all the fundies called in and boycotted the business/company you worked for, just to get you fired? Her job performance has nothing to do with her beliefs - DBS can decide whether to keep her on or not.
I will not, and cannot, endorse such a blunt tool tactic. That’s going too far. Not to mention it will only backfire on us, because we are going to look petty and undignified. Let’s try to do justice to YawningBread’s assertion that we are a mature bunch on this issue.
Not to mention I do not want to hear the new exco play the victim again. It is kind of getting tiring, really. Morever, when they play the victim, they avoid the real issues and hard questions. They are already good at that, lets not give them more opportunities.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.93
Better to convince, and not impose your views
Better to convince, and not impose your views
Yeah, I know everyone’s sick of reading about the AWARE saga in Singapore. Me too. I thought it was all pretty futile and the whole blogosphere has gone nuts about it. See the massive number of blog posts on this one topic, with everyone dishing out their two cents on the matter.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. Encouraged by their female mentor who was upset by the increasingly pro-lesbian agenda of AWARE, a bunch of females made an aggressive takeover of the female-focused civil society organization, kicking out the old guard overnight with a co-ordinated electoral strategy. Half the island goes nuts because the new guard refused to reveal their agenda, and the other half goes nuts because they’ve never understood what AWARE was about. Heated exchanges in the press, death threats, police reports and changing of locks ensue, and you can bet this is the most publicity AWARE has ever gotten in its two decades of existence.
Everyone has their idea on why the whole saga matters, but let’s face it, the raw nerve was touched when two camps fought over the issue of homosexuality.
This is an incredibly divisive issue, and nobody really likes to discuss it in public, no matter which country you’re in. But the fight came boiling out into the open and things were made worse when the church was dragged into it (most the new guard belong to the same church).
Now let’s get one thing straight first (no pun intended) – anyone who truly believes in Jesus Christ knows that God opposes homosexuality. The Bible states it several times, the clearest being 1 Corinthians 6:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This decree by God upsets people to no end, be they Christians with gay friends or the whole gay community. As Christians, our dilemma when we work and play in the secular world is “how do we state our stand here to our friends and families? We don’t want to be criticised. We don’t want labels like homophobic or bigot.”.
After all, to state upfront that you do not support this sort of lifestyle immediately elicits two major responses from many people: You’re intolerant or you’re ignorant. Never mind that the majority of Singaporeans remain in the conservative camp and keep to themselves on such matters.
The churches here also mostly keep silent on the matter, leaving it to sermons on the pulpit and refusing to comment on the recent AWARE debacle. The last time a church openly stated its stand on this, it received a lot of backlash (but the church didn’t stand down).
The Gahmen too, has tried to divert attention from the religious and homosexual angle by stating the whole saga was more a matter of poor communication. Christian politicians have also kept silent to prevent fanning more flames.
But let’s call a spade a spade, and this is where the new exco of AWARE didn’t anticipate when they decided to bring our beliefs Bible into the secular space. They were stunned by the level of hostility brought upon them, and I must say getting a death threat was most unexpected by everyone, including myself.
I write this post for fellow believers, and will probably get flamed. But there are some things I really feel a need to speak out on with regards to our faith:
1. The Bible’s stand on many difficult issues is crystal clear – we need not be apologetic for it. But you don’t contest the world on its own terms because we have to detach ourselves from it. The secular world demands tolerance for all beliefs, otherwise Christians will have to spend a lot of time going after other religions.
The worst label people and fellow Christians can give a person is a “fundamentalist”, because it implies a dogged insistence on a skewed agenda. But believing and acting on the words of Christ do not make you a fundamentalist – it is when you reject all other points of view and refuse to listen to believers and non-believers alike that you become intolerant in the worst possible way.
This is one of the reasons why there are so many denominations of churches today and why I simply refuse to be called “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Bible-Presbyterian”, “Anglican” or whatever. I’m just a Christian, and I believe in God’s Word, plain and simple. If you want to speak in tongues, fine, but I can’t. Doesn’t mean I won’t see you in Heaven, bro. In the past decade, I’ve seen a respected pastor kicked out of his own church he founded because he just became too dogmatic and refused to see it.
George Bush claimed he was a born-again Christian but created death and destruction of many Muslims through war and torture methods. What kind of role model is he for believers? Let God deal with the world as He sees fit, but we do good where we can. (Proverbs 3:27)
Tolerance is a virtue in itself, as it helps us to control our tongue from creating further damage. (I wish I can remember this on a daily basis!). I may not agree with the lifestyles of other people, but what better way of convincing them than trying to lead the life God asks me to?
2. Practice what you preach, but imposing your views on others is not the way to go. When I was young and didn’t believe in Christ, I was most upset by the “holy-moly” ACS classmates or teachers who insisted on telling me I was going to hell if I didn’t believe. It only increased my resistance to Christ because it was shoving doctrine down my throat. Only by God’s grace did I hear and understand his message when I was older.
AWARE’s new exco had a clear agenda from the start (as revealed by their internal emails that the press pounced upon) but refused to come clean during their aggressive takeover. As Christians, why should we be afraid to lay the facts down when asked what we are doing in the public space? What is upsetting now is that the new Exco keeps claiming it remains secular in its focus when all evidence as dragged up by the media points otherwise. This just puts the majority of Christians – who are always prime fodder for criticism and derision – in further bad light.
3. Why go to extremes?
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 has the verse which sticks in my mind all the time and is very applicable in this instance.
Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes
Was there a less abrasive way of stating the Bible’s stand on homosexuality than taking over a high-profile secular civil-society group? Look at the secular world today – it is drenched in love for materialism, for power, for money…not very different from the days of Sodom and Gomorrah actually. We grapple with the same sins and influences our forefathers did..the good fight continues daily in the physical and spiritual world.
But as Christian parents, our job is to guide our children through the inevitable morass of sin out there. NOT to block all incoming signals, but to teach them God’s ways.
I am not advocating inertia and passivity – but instructing our children in the way to go so they will not waver when they grow up. When was the last time you tried to tell another parent how to bring up his kid? Surely you would have been told to mind your own business.
The AWARE saga has been a public airing of poor public relations, poor people management and resulted in unnecessary hostile labelling of Christians in the public sphere. The society will be tainted for a long time by everyone’s poor handling of the crisis. Trials and tribulations are part of the package when you bear the cross, but what happens if the new exco failed to get its original message across?
If we were to be truly objective, all Christians are bigots in the eyes of the world because we reject the world utterly for what it is. We tolerate the world because we have to live through this physical stage as we look to an eternity with Christ. But then again, Jesus came down among the masses to spread his message, hung around prostitutes and hated tax-collectors, and showed those who would listen that God truly loved the world.
You can call a person a homophobic, which implies he fears gays. But no, Christians are not homophobic because we simply reject the lifestyle, not the person. Such hostile labels don’t help when they stick and is not rebutted against in a clear and honest manner.
My bottomline is – if we want to fight for what we believe in, how can we do it with love and not aggression? How can we get the respect and understanding of the secular world for the things we do? Honestly, only God has the answers and we need to ask for them.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.83
Yeah, I know everyone’s sick of reading about the AWARE saga in Singapore. Me too. I thought it was all pretty futile and the whole blogosphere has gone nuts about it. See the massive number of blog posts on this one topic, with everyone dishing out their two cents on the matter.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. Encouraged by their female mentor who was upset by the increasingly pro-lesbian agenda of AWARE, a bunch of females made an aggressive takeover of the female-focused civil society organization, kicking out the old guard overnight with a co-ordinated electoral strategy. Half the island goes nuts because the new guard refused to reveal their agenda, and the other half goes nuts because they’ve never understood what AWARE was about. Heated exchanges in the press, death threats, police reports and changing of locks ensue, and you can bet this is the most publicity AWARE has ever gotten in its two decades of existence.
Everyone has their idea on why the whole saga matters, but let’s face it, the raw nerve was touched when two camps fought over the issue of homosexuality.
This is an incredibly divisive issue, and nobody really likes to discuss it in public, no matter which country you’re in. But the fight came boiling out into the open and things were made worse when the church was dragged into it (most the new guard belong to the same church).
Now let’s get one thing straight first (no pun intended) – anyone who truly believes in Jesus Christ knows that God opposes homosexuality. The Bible states it several times, the clearest being 1 Corinthians 6:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This decree by God upsets people to no end, be they Christians with gay friends or the whole gay community. As Christians, our dilemma when we work and play in the secular world is “how do we state our stand here to our friends and families? We don’t want to be criticised. We don’t want labels like homophobic or bigot.”.
After all, to state upfront that you do not support this sort of lifestyle immediately elicits two major responses from many people: You’re intolerant or you’re ignorant. Never mind that the majority of Singaporeans remain in the conservative camp and keep to themselves on such matters.
The churches here also mostly keep silent on the matter, leaving it to sermons on the pulpit and refusing to comment on the recent AWARE debacle. The last time a church openly stated its stand on this, it received a lot of backlash (but the church didn’t stand down).
The Gahmen too, has tried to divert attention from the religious and homosexual angle by stating the whole saga was more a matter of poor communication. Christian politicians have also kept silent to prevent fanning more flames.
But let’s call a spade a spade, and this is where the new exco of AWARE didn’t anticipate when they decided to bring our beliefs Bible into the secular space. They were stunned by the level of hostility brought upon them, and I must say getting a death threat was most unexpected by everyone, including myself.
I write this post for fellow believers, and will probably get flamed. But there are some things I really feel a need to speak out on with regards to our faith:
1. The Bible’s stand on many difficult issues is crystal clear – we need not be apologetic for it. But you don’t contest the world on its own terms because we have to detach ourselves from it. The secular world demands tolerance for all beliefs, otherwise Christians will have to spend a lot of time going after other religions.
The worst label people and fellow Christians can give a person is a “fundamentalist”, because it implies a dogged insistence on a skewed agenda. But believing and acting on the words of Christ do not make you a fundamentalist – it is when you reject all other points of view and refuse to listen to believers and non-believers alike that you become intolerant in the worst possible way.
This is one of the reasons why there are so many denominations of churches today and why I simply refuse to be called “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Bible-Presbyterian”, “Anglican” or whatever. I’m just a Christian, and I believe in God’s Word, plain and simple. If you want to speak in tongues, fine, but I can’t. Doesn’t mean I won’t see you in Heaven, bro. In the past decade, I’ve seen a respected pastor kicked out of his own church he founded because he just became too dogmatic and refused to see it.
George Bush claimed he was a born-again Christian but created death and destruction of many Muslims through war and torture methods. What kind of role model is he for believers? Let God deal with the world as He sees fit, but we do good where we can. (Proverbs 3:27)
Tolerance is a virtue in itself, as it helps us to control our tongue from creating further damage. (I wish I can remember this on a daily basis!). I may not agree with the lifestyles of other people, but what better way of convincing them than trying to lead the life God asks me to?
2. Practice what you preach, but imposing your views on others is not the way to go. When I was young and didn’t believe in Christ, I was most upset by the “holy-moly” ACS classmates or teachers who insisted on telling me I was going to hell if I didn’t believe. It only increased my resistance to Christ because it was shoving doctrine down my throat. Only by God’s grace did I hear and understand his message when I was older.
AWARE’s new exco had a clear agenda from the start (as revealed by their internal emails that the press pounced upon) but refused to come clean during their aggressive takeover. As Christians, why should we be afraid to lay the facts down when asked what we are doing in the public space? What is upsetting now is that the new Exco keeps claiming it remains secular in its focus when all evidence as dragged up by the media points otherwise. This just puts the majority of Christians – who are always prime fodder for criticism and derision – in further bad light.
3. Why go to extremes?
Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 has the verse which sticks in my mind all the time and is very applicable in this instance.
Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?
It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes
Was there a less abrasive way of stating the Bible’s stand on homosexuality than taking over a high-profile secular civil-society group? Look at the secular world today – it is drenched in love for materialism, for power, for money…not very different from the days of Sodom and Gomorrah actually. We grapple with the same sins and influences our forefathers did..the good fight continues daily in the physical and spiritual world.
But as Christian parents, our job is to guide our children through the inevitable morass of sin out there. NOT to block all incoming signals, but to teach them God’s ways.
I am not advocating inertia and passivity – but instructing our children in the way to go so they will not waver when they grow up. When was the last time you tried to tell another parent how to bring up his kid? Surely you would have been told to mind your own business.
The AWARE saga has been a public airing of poor public relations, poor people management and resulted in unnecessary hostile labelling of Christians in the public sphere. The society will be tainted for a long time by everyone’s poor handling of the crisis. Trials and tribulations are part of the package when you bear the cross, but what happens if the new exco failed to get its original message across?
If we were to be truly objective, all Christians are bigots in the eyes of the world because we reject the world utterly for what it is. We tolerate the world because we have to live through this physical stage as we look to an eternity with Christ. But then again, Jesus came down among the masses to spread his message, hung around prostitutes and hated tax-collectors, and showed those who would listen that God truly loved the world.
You can call a person a homophobic, which implies he fears gays. But no, Christians are not homophobic because we simply reject the lifestyle, not the person. Such hostile labels don’t help when they stick and is not rebutted against in a clear and honest manner.
My bottomline is – if we want to fight for what we believe in, how can we do it with love and not aggression? How can we get the respect and understanding of the secular world for the things we do? Honestly, only God has the answers and we need to ask for them.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.83
Aware: I am a Liberal
I am a Liberal
The recent AWARE issue has shown how the conservatives are now going on the offensive. I am very much against their stand. Basically they think that homosexuality is immoral and should not be 'encouraged', and that gay activists have a long term agenda they are pursuing that goes beyond repealing certain laws.
What we need to recognize is that 'encourage' is the wrong word to use here. Gays are starting off from a position of being discriminated against, and all that gay activists want to do is to remove these discrimination. The key word here is 'discrimination'. Does removing discrimination constitute encouragement?
Homosexuality to me is a neutral word - just like what colour I like. A fact of life, personal orientation, no moral overtones. What's there to encourage? Not like it is a courtesy movement, where there is a broader social good to be achieved.
Also, does encouragement work? Does it mean I will change my sexual orientation if someone encourages me to? It's like food - I dont like to eat pig liver and no amount of encouragement will persuade me to have a bite. It doesnt matter if it's environmental conditioning or biological.
What these people are doing is they want to perpetuate discrimination, so as to 'discourage' people from being gay. Again using my food argument - does it work? People who are gay are gay, and people who are not are not!
And the government? It always say that as a responsible government, it will make some decisions even if it will cost them some votes. But it has been hands off on the gay discrimination issue, . Either there are significant conservative forces in the govt, or they simply dont care. Why bother upsetting voters for such a minority issue of no great consequence to the nation.
The government has preached acceptance on the part of the conservatives, and moderation in pursuing their rights for the gay activists, warning that gay activists risk facing a backlash from a largely conservative society.
Are we largely conservative? Anyway acceptance is not the same as non discrimination. And as long as there remains the belief that homosexuality is immoral or disgusting, discrimination cannot be eliminated (can still remain in psychological form even if laws are changed), and only acceptance can be achieved.
I understand that discrimination can never be rooted out. What I hope to see though is a world where discrimination is criticized and recognized as contemptible in public opinion. Would Thio Li Ann and friends have gotten away if they talked about racial discrimination rather than gay discrimination? Yet both are the same and fundamentally contemptible. There was a time where slavery, gender discrimination and colonialization were not viewed as immoral, and I hope gay discrimination will go the same way and gradually be recognized as abhorring in time to come.
It is very timely that I am reading Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman now. I would like to see how these conservatives move their agenda forward. Maybe they can take a leaf from the Republicans, but I dont think they will succeed. Unlike the hippies generation in America where there was rising crime rate and stuff, or in Europe where immigrants from Eastern Europe led to rising support for racists, dont think there's much happening in Singapore that will contribute to a rising tide of support for the conservatives and their anti-gay stance.
Hope I'm right.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.81
The recent AWARE issue has shown how the conservatives are now going on the offensive. I am very much against their stand. Basically they think that homosexuality is immoral and should not be 'encouraged', and that gay activists have a long term agenda they are pursuing that goes beyond repealing certain laws.
What we need to recognize is that 'encourage' is the wrong word to use here. Gays are starting off from a position of being discriminated against, and all that gay activists want to do is to remove these discrimination. The key word here is 'discrimination'. Does removing discrimination constitute encouragement?
Homosexuality to me is a neutral word - just like what colour I like. A fact of life, personal orientation, no moral overtones. What's there to encourage? Not like it is a courtesy movement, where there is a broader social good to be achieved.
Also, does encouragement work? Does it mean I will change my sexual orientation if someone encourages me to? It's like food - I dont like to eat pig liver and no amount of encouragement will persuade me to have a bite. It doesnt matter if it's environmental conditioning or biological.
What these people are doing is they want to perpetuate discrimination, so as to 'discourage' people from being gay. Again using my food argument - does it work? People who are gay are gay, and people who are not are not!
And the government? It always say that as a responsible government, it will make some decisions even if it will cost them some votes. But it has been hands off on the gay discrimination issue, . Either there are significant conservative forces in the govt, or they simply dont care. Why bother upsetting voters for such a minority issue of no great consequence to the nation.
The government has preached acceptance on the part of the conservatives, and moderation in pursuing their rights for the gay activists, warning that gay activists risk facing a backlash from a largely conservative society.
Are we largely conservative? Anyway acceptance is not the same as non discrimination. And as long as there remains the belief that homosexuality is immoral or disgusting, discrimination cannot be eliminated (can still remain in psychological form even if laws are changed), and only acceptance can be achieved.
I understand that discrimination can never be rooted out. What I hope to see though is a world where discrimination is criticized and recognized as contemptible in public opinion. Would Thio Li Ann and friends have gotten away if they talked about racial discrimination rather than gay discrimination? Yet both are the same and fundamentally contemptible. There was a time where slavery, gender discrimination and colonialization were not viewed as immoral, and I hope gay discrimination will go the same way and gradually be recognized as abhorring in time to come.
It is very timely that I am reading Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman now. I would like to see how these conservatives move their agenda forward. Maybe they can take a leaf from the Republicans, but I dont think they will succeed. Unlike the hippies generation in America where there was rising crime rate and stuff, or in Europe where immigrants from Eastern Europe led to rising support for racists, dont think there's much happening in Singapore that will contribute to a rising tide of support for the conservatives and their anti-gay stance.
Hope I'm right.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.81
Aware: What do they want?
What do they want?
The truth about Aware’s takeover came out in the papers. JL lied to the press that the takeover was not planned but TSM revealed at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club that she was the “feminist mentor” who has been instigating all these behind the scene all the while. She even claimed to know the founders of Aware, and her reason for stepping in is because she believes that Aware has strayed from its founding principles. However, all these were also debunked by the real founders of Aware, who maintained that TSM was never known as a “feminist mentor” and neither was she known or acquainted to the founders in any way.
Lying through their teeth surely makes them lose a lot of public favour. Even for those who don’t have a stand in this matter, who’re just merely sitting on the fence and watching the fight all along, could very much swing over to the old guards’ side. Just why, why did they lie so openly? Were they too stupid to think of the consequences, or is there a greater agenda behind the lies?
I would say, the women we’re dealing with here are not stupid. They may be blinded by their fundamentalist interpretation of the holy book but they are not stupid. They all hail from high society, with doctorates and high corporate positions and all, and are definitely capable of planning a simple battle like this. So I believe all these, what seem to be careless public faux pas, are also part of their orchestration to achieve what they really want.
But just what do they really want? I don’t know for sure. But it’s likely that they’ve decided that they don’t even need the support from the moderate public. If you look at the public as a spectrum stretching from the highly conservative to the highly liberal, I suspect they are trying to recruit the highly conservative through this. The conservatives are always at a more advantageous position in policy decision. When deciding on policies, the government only bothers to look at how conservative the general public is, without caring too much about the liberals because the liberals are expected to be able to adapt. The repeal 377a saga showed that the collective power of the conservatives is strong – so strong that our PM and MM can only talk about their beliefs on why 377a should go, but still nothing can be done about it because “we’re still a largely conservative society”.
Rationally thinking, with most of the decision makers in the new Aware attending the same church, and having replaced the center manager with someone who also attends that church, it is tempting to think that Aware is turning into a subsidiary of COOS. But what’s the deal? There is a huge implication on society in general for COOS to wield so much power in an organisation as influential as Aware. For those who don’t know about COOS’ stand on issues as basic as “family”, feel free to click on the link to take a look. They have a very misogynistic view on family. They believe that the man is the head of the family and a wife should be subordinate to her husband just as her husband is subordinate to god. And they define the head of every woman as her man. How feminist can someone who believes in this be? How fit would such beliefs guide the operations of an organisation which supports women’s rights?
What I believe is that they intend to shape Singapore into their biblical society, as a pastor from COOS once said, he wants “a nation of righteous Christians”. Apparently, COOS’ agenda is clear. They want to take over this nation and merge their religion with our politics. This is dangerous, but they have already taken the first step with Aware, to brainwash whoever they can touch and transform the layman’s belief system into their misogynistic interpretation of “family”. This, they believe is in accordance to their god and thus, good. And this, they also believe is the essence of “pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore”.
From this, it seems easy to understand why they chose to err so publicly. They don’t need support from the moderates. Neither do they need support from the liberals. They only need the conservatives. They have a trump card in hand – homosexuality. Every conservative person is against homosexuality. By maligning the old Aware to have been pro-homosexuality, they are gathering a lot of empathy from the conservatives. If nothing more, the conservatives want one thing to be done – to get formal mention of “homosexuality” out of the classroom so that their offspring will not be led into thinking that being gay or lesbian is okay. That is their wish and the new Aware will be more than willing to help them achieve this dream.
So I wish for my message to go out to all the atheists or non-Christians out there who want Singapore to stay secular. Join in the fight to reverse this takeover before COOS takes over all other civil societies one by one until they have full control over our social structure and public beliefs. We need secularity, and the first battle against our secularity has already begun with the ascension of the COOS members into Aware’s Exco.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.80
The truth about Aware’s takeover came out in the papers. JL lied to the press that the takeover was not planned but TSM revealed at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club that she was the “feminist mentor” who has been instigating all these behind the scene all the while. She even claimed to know the founders of Aware, and her reason for stepping in is because she believes that Aware has strayed from its founding principles. However, all these were also debunked by the real founders of Aware, who maintained that TSM was never known as a “feminist mentor” and neither was she known or acquainted to the founders in any way.
Lying through their teeth surely makes them lose a lot of public favour. Even for those who don’t have a stand in this matter, who’re just merely sitting on the fence and watching the fight all along, could very much swing over to the old guards’ side. Just why, why did they lie so openly? Were they too stupid to think of the consequences, or is there a greater agenda behind the lies?
I would say, the women we’re dealing with here are not stupid. They may be blinded by their fundamentalist interpretation of the holy book but they are not stupid. They all hail from high society, with doctorates and high corporate positions and all, and are definitely capable of planning a simple battle like this. So I believe all these, what seem to be careless public faux pas, are also part of their orchestration to achieve what they really want.
But just what do they really want? I don’t know for sure. But it’s likely that they’ve decided that they don’t even need the support from the moderate public. If you look at the public as a spectrum stretching from the highly conservative to the highly liberal, I suspect they are trying to recruit the highly conservative through this. The conservatives are always at a more advantageous position in policy decision. When deciding on policies, the government only bothers to look at how conservative the general public is, without caring too much about the liberals because the liberals are expected to be able to adapt. The repeal 377a saga showed that the collective power of the conservatives is strong – so strong that our PM and MM can only talk about their beliefs on why 377a should go, but still nothing can be done about it because “we’re still a largely conservative society”.
Rationally thinking, with most of the decision makers in the new Aware attending the same church, and having replaced the center manager with someone who also attends that church, it is tempting to think that Aware is turning into a subsidiary of COOS. But what’s the deal? There is a huge implication on society in general for COOS to wield so much power in an organisation as influential as Aware. For those who don’t know about COOS’ stand on issues as basic as “family”, feel free to click on the link to take a look. They have a very misogynistic view on family. They believe that the man is the head of the family and a wife should be subordinate to her husband just as her husband is subordinate to god. And they define the head of every woman as her man. How feminist can someone who believes in this be? How fit would such beliefs guide the operations of an organisation which supports women’s rights?
What I believe is that they intend to shape Singapore into their biblical society, as a pastor from COOS once said, he wants “a nation of righteous Christians”. Apparently, COOS’ agenda is clear. They want to take over this nation and merge their religion with our politics. This is dangerous, but they have already taken the first step with Aware, to brainwash whoever they can touch and transform the layman’s belief system into their misogynistic interpretation of “family”. This, they believe is in accordance to their god and thus, good. And this, they also believe is the essence of “pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore”.
From this, it seems easy to understand why they chose to err so publicly. They don’t need support from the moderates. Neither do they need support from the liberals. They only need the conservatives. They have a trump card in hand – homosexuality. Every conservative person is against homosexuality. By maligning the old Aware to have been pro-homosexuality, they are gathering a lot of empathy from the conservatives. If nothing more, the conservatives want one thing to be done – to get formal mention of “homosexuality” out of the classroom so that their offspring will not be led into thinking that being gay or lesbian is okay. That is their wish and the new Aware will be more than willing to help them achieve this dream.
So I wish for my message to go out to all the atheists or non-Christians out there who want Singapore to stay secular. Join in the fight to reverse this takeover before COOS takes over all other civil societies one by one until they have full control over our social structure and public beliefs. We need secularity, and the first battle against our secularity has already begun with the ascension of the COOS members into Aware’s Exco.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.80
Inflation is up 1.6%
Inflation is up 1.6%
These are the Singapore inflation rates for 2009:
January: 2.9%
February: 1.9%
March: 1.6%
Food and Housing is leading the charge, rising by 4.6% and 5.5% respectively year on year. Surprisingly, compared to February, food prices has risen for March. This proves that Singaporeans do not stinge on food. Housing prices has been moderating downwards, as expected. Transport & Communication prices has dropped the most, which is similar to last month. The rest of the CPI basket did not vary much compared to last month.
Transport & Communication, and Housing will most probably go down a fair bit in April, and will continue to tread downwards. Judging from the trend, it also seems that food prices is quite resilient, and will remain stable for at least the first half of the year. I'm still of view that inflation will still be positive in April to June, ranging around at least 1%.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27985.1
These are the Singapore inflation rates for 2009:
January: 2.9%
February: 1.9%
March: 1.6%
Food and Housing is leading the charge, rising by 4.6% and 5.5% respectively year on year. Surprisingly, compared to February, food prices has risen for March. This proves that Singaporeans do not stinge on food. Housing prices has been moderating downwards, as expected. Transport & Communication prices has dropped the most, which is similar to last month. The rest of the CPI basket did not vary much compared to last month.
Transport & Communication, and Housing will most probably go down a fair bit in April, and will continue to tread downwards. Judging from the trend, it also seems that food prices is quite resilient, and will remain stable for at least the first half of the year. I'm still of view that inflation will still be positive in April to June, ranging around at least 1%.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27985.1
Embrace Foreigners, and Screw the Locals(NSmen)
Embrace Foreigners, and Screw the Locals(NSmen)
All this talk about National Integration and integration of foreigners into Singapore misses the mark. We are talking about welcome others when we treat our own so poorly. What am I talking about?
I am talking about National Service. I am talking about mandatory 2 years (formerly 2.5 years) of conscription of Singaporean male citizens into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
I am talking about the 10 years of reservist obligations comprising but not limited to:
* annual in-camp training lasting 2 to 21 days (in practice but legally up to 40 days under the law)
* annual individual physical proficiency tests (IPPT) for those medically fit NSmen (those who fail to clear their tests are subject to Remedial Training of twice/thrice a week)
* notifying Mindef Notification Centre for any overseas trips exceeding 24 hours
* need to apply for exit permit for trips of 6 months or longer
* annual operations manning or mobilisation exercises than can happen 2-3 times a year
To be male and Singaporean is to serve and f*** off
These obligations are not new. They have been imposed on NSmen since the whole NS system was developed just after Singapore gained independence and as the British withdrew their military forces out of Singapore not long after.
What is new is that the pace of immigration to Singapore has increased tremendously. It has created a truly global city, Singapore Inc, with the implications of a labour market that is competitive in every sense of the word.
I saw it during my days working in the IT industry. Singaporeans have virtually no real advantages and in fact, Singaporean males who are NSmen are DISADVANTAGED because to employers, they come attached with annual ICT obligations that leave the company WITHOUT the services of their employees even if Mindef does reimburse them for the wages they continue to pay for their staff. Ceteris paribus, if I were an employer, I would choose a permanent resident or Employment Pass holder over a male citizen as I don't suffer as many disruptions to my use of this factor of production.
Competition is not wrong. I welcome it. It makes you upgrade yourself, not to take the status quo for granted and not to think you are entitled to anything unless you are smart and work hard for it. But to compete on unequal terms is simply unfair.
Discrimination in your own country
How can it be fair to Singaporean male citizens who are:
1) discriminated against female citizens who do not have NS?
2) discriminated against as compared to 1st generation Permanent Residents and newly minted citizens who do not have to serve NS (for those older)?
Let me share with you specific examples of discrimination.
During my 7th ICT, one of my unit reservists died during the 2.4km run. He died for the country. He died because of some underlying heart condition that surfaced during the run. He died because he was a citizen and was born male in Singapore Inc.
I was running a big project in my department. A few months into the project, I received the SAF 100 for a 3 week reservist doing operational duty protecting key installations in Singapore. I duly informed my bosses about it.
Guess what happened?
Yes, I was allowed to go for my reservist duty... BUT, my boss took the project away from me and gave it to my female colleague who did not have any reservist obligation.
How do you think it would affect my year end appraisal to have a significant project taken away because I wouldn't be around for 3 weeks because of service to the COUNTRY?
So if I had been killed during the operational duty (and mind you we carry live rounds and execute rules of engagement that involve the real possiblity of stopping potential terrorists or be injured or a target of attacks) my female colleague would get a shot at a better portfolio of work for her annual appraisal while I would have enjoyed a military funeral at taxpayers expense.
So now we have a new "Integration Council" helmed by not one, not two but seven ministers.
Their objective is to,
"... promote and foster social integration among Singaporeans and with new citizens and permanent residents."
May I make a small suggestion?
Can we start by treating our reservists better? This will lessen the discrimination AGAINST our own male citizens. It's bad enough that I had 2.5 years of my youth wasted in the Singapore Armed Forces.
I entered the workforce 2.5 years later and have reservist liabilities that made me less competitive vis-a-vis my competitors in the workforce who are on employment pass or permanent residence tickets into Singapore Inc. I fought hard in the workplace, I have a recognised degree from NTU, with relevant work experience and I did my duty to my country only to have it spat back into my face.
Immigration has been so pervasive that the criteria seems to be very easy. I noted that even your friendly neighbourhood hawker assistant in food courts can get permanent residency status!
That really cheapens the entire Singapore Citizenship. Don't forget, male citizenship is earned using tears, sweat and blood. Can my female citizens claim to serve their country up to the point of risking DEATH and INJURY? Who sees the pain when I was running standard obstacle course? Who empathised with me when I was insulted by regulars in the army with epithets such as "gu-niang", "cheese-bye" or having an Captain say that he will "crucify" the next recruit who said something stupid? Who shared my fear when seeing my fellow reservist COLLAPSE and DIE during his 2.4km run.
Integrating immigrants - has the Government looked at how and why it is screwing its NSmen?
The National Integration Council doesn't have to look far to uncover the seething resentment among many NSmen and NSF.
Singapore Inc runs 1st and foremost by economic considerations. I accept that. But why is the Government screwing us NSmen by imposing obligations in a way that is both disruptive and detrimental to our economic competitiveness.
They expect us NSmen to grin and bear it when we know we are competing on an unequal playing field? How can you expect us to embrace immigrants who are fighting for the very same rice-bowls and who do not need to make similar sacrifices to preserve it? I have risked my life every time I report for my annual in-camp training to protect and defend our way of life only to find that sacrifice entails having me risk my livelihood?!
This country is losing its identity and social cohesiveness even as this post is written. We are a country that now worships money. The economic imperative is the be-all and the end-all. Thus, we embrace immmigrants because they contribute to the economic fabric of the nation. They help keep the wheels of commerce and industry churning with the accessible foreign labour. Integrating them helps Singapore Inc. purr smoothly even as individual citizens get squashed in the MRT and bus during peak hours.
Embrace them even as the SAF/SPF and SCDF embraced our NSmen, sometimes to the point of losing their lives for duty, honour and country.
And that is why I am so glad that my daughter was born into Singapore Inc. She doesn't have to serve and gets to COMPETE on more equal terms to permanent residents, foreigners and the rest of her competitors in future for a piece of the pie in Singapore Inc.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27901.1
All this talk about National Integration and integration of foreigners into Singapore misses the mark. We are talking about welcome others when we treat our own so poorly. What am I talking about?
I am talking about National Service. I am talking about mandatory 2 years (formerly 2.5 years) of conscription of Singaporean male citizens into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
I am talking about the 10 years of reservist obligations comprising but not limited to:
* annual in-camp training lasting 2 to 21 days (in practice but legally up to 40 days under the law)
* annual individual physical proficiency tests (IPPT) for those medically fit NSmen (those who fail to clear their tests are subject to Remedial Training of twice/thrice a week)
* notifying Mindef Notification Centre for any overseas trips exceeding 24 hours
* need to apply for exit permit for trips of 6 months or longer
* annual operations manning or mobilisation exercises than can happen 2-3 times a year
To be male and Singaporean is to serve and f*** off
These obligations are not new. They have been imposed on NSmen since the whole NS system was developed just after Singapore gained independence and as the British withdrew their military forces out of Singapore not long after.
What is new is that the pace of immigration to Singapore has increased tremendously. It has created a truly global city, Singapore Inc, with the implications of a labour market that is competitive in every sense of the word.
I saw it during my days working in the IT industry. Singaporeans have virtually no real advantages and in fact, Singaporean males who are NSmen are DISADVANTAGED because to employers, they come attached with annual ICT obligations that leave the company WITHOUT the services of their employees even if Mindef does reimburse them for the wages they continue to pay for their staff. Ceteris paribus, if I were an employer, I would choose a permanent resident or Employment Pass holder over a male citizen as I don't suffer as many disruptions to my use of this factor of production.
Competition is not wrong. I welcome it. It makes you upgrade yourself, not to take the status quo for granted and not to think you are entitled to anything unless you are smart and work hard for it. But to compete on unequal terms is simply unfair.
Discrimination in your own country
How can it be fair to Singaporean male citizens who are:
1) discriminated against female citizens who do not have NS?
2) discriminated against as compared to 1st generation Permanent Residents and newly minted citizens who do not have to serve NS (for those older)?
Let me share with you specific examples of discrimination.
During my 7th ICT, one of my unit reservists died during the 2.4km run. He died for the country. He died because of some underlying heart condition that surfaced during the run. He died because he was a citizen and was born male in Singapore Inc.
I was running a big project in my department. A few months into the project, I received the SAF 100 for a 3 week reservist doing operational duty protecting key installations in Singapore. I duly informed my bosses about it.
Guess what happened?
Yes, I was allowed to go for my reservist duty... BUT, my boss took the project away from me and gave it to my female colleague who did not have any reservist obligation.
How do you think it would affect my year end appraisal to have a significant project taken away because I wouldn't be around for 3 weeks because of service to the COUNTRY?
So if I had been killed during the operational duty (and mind you we carry live rounds and execute rules of engagement that involve the real possiblity of stopping potential terrorists or be injured or a target of attacks) my female colleague would get a shot at a better portfolio of work for her annual appraisal while I would have enjoyed a military funeral at taxpayers expense.
So now we have a new "Integration Council" helmed by not one, not two but seven ministers.
Their objective is to,
"... promote and foster social integration among Singaporeans and with new citizens and permanent residents."
May I make a small suggestion?
Can we start by treating our reservists better? This will lessen the discrimination AGAINST our own male citizens. It's bad enough that I had 2.5 years of my youth wasted in the Singapore Armed Forces.
I entered the workforce 2.5 years later and have reservist liabilities that made me less competitive vis-a-vis my competitors in the workforce who are on employment pass or permanent residence tickets into Singapore Inc. I fought hard in the workplace, I have a recognised degree from NTU, with relevant work experience and I did my duty to my country only to have it spat back into my face.
Immigration has been so pervasive that the criteria seems to be very easy. I noted that even your friendly neighbourhood hawker assistant in food courts can get permanent residency status!
That really cheapens the entire Singapore Citizenship. Don't forget, male citizenship is earned using tears, sweat and blood. Can my female citizens claim to serve their country up to the point of risking DEATH and INJURY? Who sees the pain when I was running standard obstacle course? Who empathised with me when I was insulted by regulars in the army with epithets such as "gu-niang", "cheese-bye" or having an Captain say that he will "crucify" the next recruit who said something stupid? Who shared my fear when seeing my fellow reservist COLLAPSE and DIE during his 2.4km run.
Integrating immigrants - has the Government looked at how and why it is screwing its NSmen?
The National Integration Council doesn't have to look far to uncover the seething resentment among many NSmen and NSF.
Singapore Inc runs 1st and foremost by economic considerations. I accept that. But why is the Government screwing us NSmen by imposing obligations in a way that is both disruptive and detrimental to our economic competitiveness.
They expect us NSmen to grin and bear it when we know we are competing on an unequal playing field? How can you expect us to embrace immigrants who are fighting for the very same rice-bowls and who do not need to make similar sacrifices to preserve it? I have risked my life every time I report for my annual in-camp training to protect and defend our way of life only to find that sacrifice entails having me risk my livelihood?!
This country is losing its identity and social cohesiveness even as this post is written. We are a country that now worships money. The economic imperative is the be-all and the end-all. Thus, we embrace immmigrants because they contribute to the economic fabric of the nation. They help keep the wheels of commerce and industry churning with the accessible foreign labour. Integrating them helps Singapore Inc. purr smoothly even as individual citizens get squashed in the MRT and bus during peak hours.
Embrace them even as the SAF/SPF and SCDF embraced our NSmen, sometimes to the point of losing their lives for duty, honour and country.
And that is why I am so glad that my daughter was born into Singapore Inc. She doesn't have to serve and gets to COMPETE on more equal terms to permanent residents, foreigners and the rest of her competitors in future for a piece of the pie in Singapore Inc.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27901.1
Our bloated defence budget: To be a Porcupine or a Poisoned Shrimp?
Our bloated defence budget: To be a Porcupine or a Poisoned Shrimp?
In an marine ecosystem, the big fish eats the small fish, which eats the shrimp. The original defence strategy of Singapore, taking into account its size was to be a poisonous shrimp. A predator would be contemplating suicide unless it was sufficiently large, in which case, it would be weakened and could be eaten by another otherwise benign fish. Yet, the then BG Lee Hsien Loong remarked in 1982 in an interview that one cannot threaten a shrimp, but one can threaten a nation with destruction and when given a choice, the nation would choose to capitulate over suicide.
This is however contrary to many examples in history. It is difficult to imagine that the Swiss could survive the German war machine during WW2 but they managed to keep themselves out of the conflict. The Americans could also have threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear destruction prior to the latter’s successes in developing sufficient arms but this was not done, and the Cold War raged for half a century.
BG Lee had already perhaps envisaged the future lack of will among Singpaoreans to defend the nation and thus needed to compensate with a more offensive “porcupine” strategy, which according to certain scholars have already been in place for many years.
This new strategy however ran into difficulties over the next few decades. While Singapore armed herself with arguably one of the most potent western oriented air force in the region, Malaysia possibly responded by acquiring Russian jets with more advanced weaponry than the Americans were willing to sell.
While the Singapore government lobbied for more advanced American weapons, the Malaysian army bought highly advanced Brazilian multiple rocket launcher systems that can threaten airfields and military installations to neutralize the Singaporean superiority in the air. More recent purchases were highlighted in the previous article. SAF acquisitions appears to be countered by asymmetrical acquisitions requiring extraordinary effort by the SAF to counter.
Can the “porcupine” strategy de disassociated from the regional arms race? In fact, Singapore’s leaders recognized in 2000 that the “porcupine” strategy has ruffled a few regional feathers. Yet, it seems that this strategy has continued and not ceased even during times of recession. Can Singapore’s GDP and defence budget grow adequately at the required pace to continue this approach indefinitely?
To delve into this topic, we must explore first and foremost the grand strategy, as coined by Liddell Hart, that Singapore needs to take. Unlike military strategy, grand strategy must consider the interplay of political and military action.
Military strategy cannot be divorced with national or grand strategy. To defend itself, a nation must rely equally on both strategies. It is also said that during the winter wars against the Soviet Union, the Finnish rejected German demands to attack Leningrad although the former were only tens of kilometres away because they saw the political ramifications of attacking the prized city of their bitter enemy.
In the end, their calculations were proven right as the Soviets eventually overran eastern Germany to end WW2. It can be thus argued that employing the right grand strategy is as important or perhaps even more important than the right military strategy. Just imagine the world today without Nokia had the Soviets decided to punish Finland as well for attacking Leningrad.
The grand strategy that Singapore should adopt consist of several principles: make Singapore economically and politically too costly to attack; assure great power intervention in the event of armed conflict; avoid a regional arms race which she cannot keep up indefinitely; and maintain legitimacy in action.
Singapore’s current grand strategy is a result of cross breeding Swiss complicity and Israeli hostility. So it is perhaps by no accident that Singapore is a regional financial hub, and often the subject to accusations of being a money laundering centre, a tax evasion haven, as well as the place for regional personalities to park ill gotten gains. More recently she was on OECD’s blacklist (subsequently “greylist”) of non cooperative countries that aided tax evasion.
The presence of CISCO guardhouses in uber safe Singapore for certain unofficial VIPs in certain areas also supports the illicit funds theory. Regardless of the real reasons, Singapore’s tax friendly environment and her continued ability to maintain strict banking secrecy laws outside Europe must also have featured strongly in a certain Swiss bank’s decision to move its headquarters here.
If true, there is very little incentive for rational leaders of neighbouring countries to attack. Even if the allegations are untrue, the value of a functional financial centre is much greater than a bombed out skyscraper. Thus the Singapore’s government has done well in developing the financial services rendering an armed attack economically costly.
But this strategy is being threatened by the lack of legitimacy as seen from OECD action and it does not win favours with the peoples of the neighbouring countries. Singapore’s policies need to be seen to be fair and just. Arrogance and controversies involving Temasek Holdings in Thaksin’s Thailand and Indonesia should be avoided.
Temasek and GIC are sovereign wealth funds, and profit cannot be the only guiding principle as they represent Singapore. If Singapore is generally in the good books of her neighbours, it becomes extremely difficult for their leaders to create the necessary political conditions and support to sustain an attack without losing political ground, even if they are military despots.
Global trade patterns, Singapore’s strategic position, and current vested interest by the US already assures prompt action by the international community in the event of an armed conflict. To assure that the intervention benefits Singapore, legitimacy of action is primordial.
The globalized nature of Singapore’s economy and her dependency on trade for survival makes her extremely vulnerable to sanctions of any kind. Achieving a military victory without legitimacy could well spell the end of this Asian Tiger and pave the way for overall defeat and loss of sovereignty.
The accompanying military strategy must support the overall grand strategy and should focus on developing an extremely hard shell aimed at preventing a land invasion, securing Singapore’s lifeline - the sea lane of communications -, and preventing incursions or attacks from the air, while being able to perform stand off retaliation and some surgical long range attacks at centres of power.
For this, the RSN should provide the geographical depth that the island lacks. The current RSN should focus on controlling the sea lanes, and if necessary, to covertly block the sea lanes in order to speed up international intervention.
Some amphibious capability is desired to add complexity to the aggressors plans and these crafts are often also useful for humanitarian operations, which raises the prestige of the SAF and is great for building goodwill regionally. Some strategic attack capability should also be added.
The RSAF should focus on gaining control of the air with a small fleet of multirole fighters and replace her antiquated HAWK surface to air missile batteries with modern variants. Like the Swedish concept of operations, RSAF’s fighters should not depend on airfields like crutches.
The Swedish modus operandi was so successful during the Cold War that the Soviets drew up a plan to assassinate the pilots in their homes. Another important role for the RSAF would be of surveillance, a role that she presumably already excels in.
The army should be made up of mostly conscripts but specialising in coastal island defence, urban, anti tank and anti aircraft operations mostly on foot or highly mobile platforms. Heavy tank and artillery units and could be professional forces or a mix but again they should focus on operations from the homeland.
Using the Taiwanese and Swiss army as a guide, a 1 year NS period with regular local ICTs should be sufficient to train a army for essentially defensive duties. Current 2 year training plans are probably designed to train complex brigade and occasionally divisional level combined arms, inter army competencies, which is not required for most defensive duties.
Instead of deploying so regularly for training exercises, the SAF should increase her international commitment of volunteer forces (professional forces who personally volunteer) to peacekeeping and peace support operations. The objectives are two fold.
Firstly, to increase operational experience to debunk the non-combat tested hypothesis that is always floating around defence circles, and secondly to support the purported deterrence and defence diplomacy policies. Other regional armed forces have the dubious benefit of regular conflicts as well as regular operational stints, including Malaysian soldiers in Mogadishu where they heroically rescued US Marines.
Without the necessary data and expertise, it is impossible to gauge the exact cost of equipping and maintaining such a SAF. However, with a reduction in heavy offensive weaponry, amphibious capabilities, and conscription training durations, an overall reduction in defence expenditure is not unimaginable.
Today, Singapore should have enough water to last a short conflict with reserve to spare. Furthermore, the geopolitical realities of the region will not permit a prolonged armed conflict. Despite the widespread destruction in the Gaza, the Israelis did not damage any water infrastructure. Any action otherwise would cause an immediate loss of legitimacy, international condemnation and its repercussions.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the threat to cut water supply is anything more than rhetoric. However, Singapore’s lack of water is a strategic vulnerability that must be addressed and is already currently being addressed.
What is proposed is extremely brief and cannot and will not attempt to pretend that it covers all areas. However, it proposes a departure from the “porcupine” strategy by reducing the SAF’s offensive posture, by avoiding a arms race, and by accepting the realities of armed conflict in the 21st century. It also highlights the importance of other non military factors to secure Singapore’s sovereignty.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27897.1
In an marine ecosystem, the big fish eats the small fish, which eats the shrimp. The original defence strategy of Singapore, taking into account its size was to be a poisonous shrimp. A predator would be contemplating suicide unless it was sufficiently large, in which case, it would be weakened and could be eaten by another otherwise benign fish. Yet, the then BG Lee Hsien Loong remarked in 1982 in an interview that one cannot threaten a shrimp, but one can threaten a nation with destruction and when given a choice, the nation would choose to capitulate over suicide.
This is however contrary to many examples in history. It is difficult to imagine that the Swiss could survive the German war machine during WW2 but they managed to keep themselves out of the conflict. The Americans could also have threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear destruction prior to the latter’s successes in developing sufficient arms but this was not done, and the Cold War raged for half a century.
BG Lee had already perhaps envisaged the future lack of will among Singpaoreans to defend the nation and thus needed to compensate with a more offensive “porcupine” strategy, which according to certain scholars have already been in place for many years.
This new strategy however ran into difficulties over the next few decades. While Singapore armed herself with arguably one of the most potent western oriented air force in the region, Malaysia possibly responded by acquiring Russian jets with more advanced weaponry than the Americans were willing to sell.
While the Singapore government lobbied for more advanced American weapons, the Malaysian army bought highly advanced Brazilian multiple rocket launcher systems that can threaten airfields and military installations to neutralize the Singaporean superiority in the air. More recent purchases were highlighted in the previous article. SAF acquisitions appears to be countered by asymmetrical acquisitions requiring extraordinary effort by the SAF to counter.
Can the “porcupine” strategy de disassociated from the regional arms race? In fact, Singapore’s leaders recognized in 2000 that the “porcupine” strategy has ruffled a few regional feathers. Yet, it seems that this strategy has continued and not ceased even during times of recession. Can Singapore’s GDP and defence budget grow adequately at the required pace to continue this approach indefinitely?
To delve into this topic, we must explore first and foremost the grand strategy, as coined by Liddell Hart, that Singapore needs to take. Unlike military strategy, grand strategy must consider the interplay of political and military action.
Military strategy cannot be divorced with national or grand strategy. To defend itself, a nation must rely equally on both strategies. It is also said that during the winter wars against the Soviet Union, the Finnish rejected German demands to attack Leningrad although the former were only tens of kilometres away because they saw the political ramifications of attacking the prized city of their bitter enemy.
In the end, their calculations were proven right as the Soviets eventually overran eastern Germany to end WW2. It can be thus argued that employing the right grand strategy is as important or perhaps even more important than the right military strategy. Just imagine the world today without Nokia had the Soviets decided to punish Finland as well for attacking Leningrad.
The grand strategy that Singapore should adopt consist of several principles: make Singapore economically and politically too costly to attack; assure great power intervention in the event of armed conflict; avoid a regional arms race which she cannot keep up indefinitely; and maintain legitimacy in action.
Singapore’s current grand strategy is a result of cross breeding Swiss complicity and Israeli hostility. So it is perhaps by no accident that Singapore is a regional financial hub, and often the subject to accusations of being a money laundering centre, a tax evasion haven, as well as the place for regional personalities to park ill gotten gains. More recently she was on OECD’s blacklist (subsequently “greylist”) of non cooperative countries that aided tax evasion.
The presence of CISCO guardhouses in uber safe Singapore for certain unofficial VIPs in certain areas also supports the illicit funds theory. Regardless of the real reasons, Singapore’s tax friendly environment and her continued ability to maintain strict banking secrecy laws outside Europe must also have featured strongly in a certain Swiss bank’s decision to move its headquarters here.
If true, there is very little incentive for rational leaders of neighbouring countries to attack. Even if the allegations are untrue, the value of a functional financial centre is much greater than a bombed out skyscraper. Thus the Singapore’s government has done well in developing the financial services rendering an armed attack economically costly.
But this strategy is being threatened by the lack of legitimacy as seen from OECD action and it does not win favours with the peoples of the neighbouring countries. Singapore’s policies need to be seen to be fair and just. Arrogance and controversies involving Temasek Holdings in Thaksin’s Thailand and Indonesia should be avoided.
Temasek and GIC are sovereign wealth funds, and profit cannot be the only guiding principle as they represent Singapore. If Singapore is generally in the good books of her neighbours, it becomes extremely difficult for their leaders to create the necessary political conditions and support to sustain an attack without losing political ground, even if they are military despots.
Global trade patterns, Singapore’s strategic position, and current vested interest by the US already assures prompt action by the international community in the event of an armed conflict. To assure that the intervention benefits Singapore, legitimacy of action is primordial.
The globalized nature of Singapore’s economy and her dependency on trade for survival makes her extremely vulnerable to sanctions of any kind. Achieving a military victory without legitimacy could well spell the end of this Asian Tiger and pave the way for overall defeat and loss of sovereignty.
The accompanying military strategy must support the overall grand strategy and should focus on developing an extremely hard shell aimed at preventing a land invasion, securing Singapore’s lifeline - the sea lane of communications -, and preventing incursions or attacks from the air, while being able to perform stand off retaliation and some surgical long range attacks at centres of power.
For this, the RSN should provide the geographical depth that the island lacks. The current RSN should focus on controlling the sea lanes, and if necessary, to covertly block the sea lanes in order to speed up international intervention.
Some amphibious capability is desired to add complexity to the aggressors plans and these crafts are often also useful for humanitarian operations, which raises the prestige of the SAF and is great for building goodwill regionally. Some strategic attack capability should also be added.
The RSAF should focus on gaining control of the air with a small fleet of multirole fighters and replace her antiquated HAWK surface to air missile batteries with modern variants. Like the Swedish concept of operations, RSAF’s fighters should not depend on airfields like crutches.
The Swedish modus operandi was so successful during the Cold War that the Soviets drew up a plan to assassinate the pilots in their homes. Another important role for the RSAF would be of surveillance, a role that she presumably already excels in.
The army should be made up of mostly conscripts but specialising in coastal island defence, urban, anti tank and anti aircraft operations mostly on foot or highly mobile platforms. Heavy tank and artillery units and could be professional forces or a mix but again they should focus on operations from the homeland.
Using the Taiwanese and Swiss army as a guide, a 1 year NS period with regular local ICTs should be sufficient to train a army for essentially defensive duties. Current 2 year training plans are probably designed to train complex brigade and occasionally divisional level combined arms, inter army competencies, which is not required for most defensive duties.
Instead of deploying so regularly for training exercises, the SAF should increase her international commitment of volunteer forces (professional forces who personally volunteer) to peacekeeping and peace support operations. The objectives are two fold.
Firstly, to increase operational experience to debunk the non-combat tested hypothesis that is always floating around defence circles, and secondly to support the purported deterrence and defence diplomacy policies. Other regional armed forces have the dubious benefit of regular conflicts as well as regular operational stints, including Malaysian soldiers in Mogadishu where they heroically rescued US Marines.
Without the necessary data and expertise, it is impossible to gauge the exact cost of equipping and maintaining such a SAF. However, with a reduction in heavy offensive weaponry, amphibious capabilities, and conscription training durations, an overall reduction in defence expenditure is not unimaginable.
Today, Singapore should have enough water to last a short conflict with reserve to spare. Furthermore, the geopolitical realities of the region will not permit a prolonged armed conflict. Despite the widespread destruction in the Gaza, the Israelis did not damage any water infrastructure. Any action otherwise would cause an immediate loss of legitimacy, international condemnation and its repercussions.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the threat to cut water supply is anything more than rhetoric. However, Singapore’s lack of water is a strategic vulnerability that must be addressed and is already currently being addressed.
What is proposed is extremely brief and cannot and will not attempt to pretend that it covers all areas. However, it proposes a departure from the “porcupine” strategy by reducing the SAF’s offensive posture, by avoiding a arms race, and by accepting the realities of armed conflict in the 21st century. It also highlights the importance of other non military factors to secure Singapore’s sovereignty.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27897.1
A Malay dilemma
A Malay dilemma
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Why the PAP struggles to renew its class of Malay leaders
The issue of race has always been a dicey one in Singapore politics, stemming partly from the heavy historical baggage of race riots and Singapore’s unanticipated separation from Malaysia. The official approach has to try to minimise debate on such sensitive matters while emphasising the government’s successes in its nation-building efforts.
Even so, the prime minister’s Cabinet reshuffle of 26th March has triggered some consternation in the Malay community, which was picked up by the vernacular press and even acknowledged by the prime minister. No Malay politician was promoted in the reshuffle; in fact, one – Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed – made way in the Northeast district for a Chinese mayor, though he retained his position as senior minister of state in the foreign ministry. More significantly, what the reshuffle seemed to have shown was that none of the Malay leaders appeared to be closing in on a key post such as deputy premier or at the helm of defence and foreign ministries.
On the surface though, there were outward shows of support: the Berita Harian, the country’s leading Malay paper, commented on 28th March about the efficient nature of the reshuffle and carried letters of support from the public. Yet that may mask a deeper anxiety: the same commentary expressed belief that the day would come when there would be a Malay deputy prime minister, though it also noted that the US took over 200 years to produce a black president. Perhaps the unspoken point was that the chances of having a Malay prime minister in Singapore were even more remote.
Another commentary in the Berita Harian by Maarof Salleh on 3rd April was more telling. Mr Maarof observed that the reshuffle had raised questions in the community about whether the present Malay leaders in the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had the requisite quality for national leadership. For example, there was apparently disappointment that senior parliamentary secretary of education Masagos Zulkifli had failed to advance while his counterparts who were similarly elected in 2006 surged ahead to become acting ministers and ministers of state; there were even worries about the existence of a quota for Malay MPs. In the longer run, Mr Maarof argued, such perceptions may discourage Malays from even joining politics.
There might be some justification for such worries. For one, there is usually some anxiety in the community about being under-represented in government, particularly when compared with the smaller Indian community: the speaker, along with a senior minister of state, two senior parliamentary secretaries, one parliamentary secretary and a mayor are Malay, but these are all arguably portfolios with limited clout compared with the Indian community, which occupies the presidency, along with a senior minister and three ministers in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, the prospects of any Malay politician occupying one of the key posts in Cabinet do not appear particularly positive. For example, it seems unlikely that environment minister Yaacob Ibrahim, the community’s sole representative in the Cabinet, will advance much further. At this point it is also hard to imagine the crop of younger Malay politicians (which includes Mr Masagos) doing any better than merely replacing Dr Yaacob at their current rate of advancement – they seem unlikely to bag anther Cabinet post, particularly since the last time the community had two ministers was before ex-environment minister Dr Ahmad Mattar retired in the mid-1990s. It might be similarly difficult to replace the current speaker – which is the next most important position held by the Malays – who is probably due to retire soon.
The obvious disconnect
The ruling party is no doubt aware of the Malay community’s dissatisfaction: fielding a question about why no Malay politicians were promoted in the reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assured the press that the current crop of Malay MPs will be advanced if they “measure up”, but alluded to the party’s recruitment difficulties when he stressed that he was “personally focused” on attracting Malay professional into politics. That is clearly a problem: if the PAP is having difficulty getting Chinese and Indians to join the party, it is finding it even harder to induct Malay recruits. That said, it is a problem faced by the opposition as well: at the last election, the biggest opposition party, the Worker’s Party, fielded mostly candidates with professional backgrounds and tertiary qualifications, something that its Malay candidates conspicuously lacked. But it is the PAP who should be the natural receptacle for Malay political talent, given its record in improving the community’s standards of living, its efforts to accommodate the community’s sensitivities and the overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian character of opposition movements in Singapore.
But that does not appear to be the case. One difficulty with trying to recruit Malay professionals is that the pool is relatively small compared with the other ethnic groups – the 2000 census indicated that only 2% of the community attained tertiary qualifications, compared with 16.5% and 12.6% of the Indians and Chinese respectively. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of Malay graduates might tend towards being more liberal and less religious. Those are traits that the conservative PAP leadership could find unacceptable, particularly when, unlike the Chinese or Indians, Malay politicians are often seen as Muslim leaders as well. Dr Yaacob, for example, is also the Minister of Muslim affairs; Mr Zainul had served previously as president of the Islamic Council of Singapore.
Furthermore, the PAP’s target pool of recruits might not be that inclined towards joining the party anyway. For example, Mr Nizam Idris, an economist whom the PAP tried to recruit in 2006, told the press in a recent interview that he had turned the PAP down partly because he “could not live with” the requisite “cheerleading” that was expected of PAP MPs, implying that he did not want to be in a party that demanded strict conformity with the official line. In this regard the party’s innate conservatism might be turning off those with a more liberal bent and who might not share its values, which are likely to be those in the PAP’s target pool of recruits. The situation would also not be helped by perceptions that Malay politicians can’t seem to advance to the top posts in the Cabinet.
More disconcertingly, there might also be perceptions that political engagement seems to be increasingly on the terms of the dominant ethnic group. For instance, Berita Harian’s commentary of 28th March expressed hope that Singapore could develop a team of Malay leaders who were fluent in Mandarin; on the same day it reported Dr Yaacob’s comments that the Malay community had to accept newcomers who neither spoke Malay nor knew the local culture. That might not be something that younger generation of Malay graduates are entirely comfortable with.
It therefore seems likely that the PAP will continue to struggle to renew its class of Malay leaders, though this is helped by the fact that other political parties are probably faring even worse. Still, this is somewhat ironic for a party that first came to power in the 1950s and 1960s with the help of some critical support from the Malay community – one article has highlighted the important role played by the progressive Malay nationalists and trade unionists in the PAP’s rise, particularly during the pre-merger and merger periods1. The PAP may find that it needs such support again to offset disaffection from other quarters should it decide to make good on its hints about calling for snap polls in the current economic gloom.
***
1 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, “Winning and losing Malay support, 1950s and 1960s”, Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-war Singapore (Singapore, NUS Press: 2008), pp. 95-115. Dr Lily Zubaidah was also the author of the “The Singapore Dilemma”, a book on the alleged marginalisation of Malays in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27896.1
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Why the PAP struggles to renew its class of Malay leaders
The issue of race has always been a dicey one in Singapore politics, stemming partly from the heavy historical baggage of race riots and Singapore’s unanticipated separation from Malaysia. The official approach has to try to minimise debate on such sensitive matters while emphasising the government’s successes in its nation-building efforts.
Even so, the prime minister’s Cabinet reshuffle of 26th March has triggered some consternation in the Malay community, which was picked up by the vernacular press and even acknowledged by the prime minister. No Malay politician was promoted in the reshuffle; in fact, one – Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed – made way in the Northeast district for a Chinese mayor, though he retained his position as senior minister of state in the foreign ministry. More significantly, what the reshuffle seemed to have shown was that none of the Malay leaders appeared to be closing in on a key post such as deputy premier or at the helm of defence and foreign ministries.
On the surface though, there were outward shows of support: the Berita Harian, the country’s leading Malay paper, commented on 28th March about the efficient nature of the reshuffle and carried letters of support from the public. Yet that may mask a deeper anxiety: the same commentary expressed belief that the day would come when there would be a Malay deputy prime minister, though it also noted that the US took over 200 years to produce a black president. Perhaps the unspoken point was that the chances of having a Malay prime minister in Singapore were even more remote.
Another commentary in the Berita Harian by Maarof Salleh on 3rd April was more telling. Mr Maarof observed that the reshuffle had raised questions in the community about whether the present Malay leaders in the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had the requisite quality for national leadership. For example, there was apparently disappointment that senior parliamentary secretary of education Masagos Zulkifli had failed to advance while his counterparts who were similarly elected in 2006 surged ahead to become acting ministers and ministers of state; there were even worries about the existence of a quota for Malay MPs. In the longer run, Mr Maarof argued, such perceptions may discourage Malays from even joining politics.
There might be some justification for such worries. For one, there is usually some anxiety in the community about being under-represented in government, particularly when compared with the smaller Indian community: the speaker, along with a senior minister of state, two senior parliamentary secretaries, one parliamentary secretary and a mayor are Malay, but these are all arguably portfolios with limited clout compared with the Indian community, which occupies the presidency, along with a senior minister and three ministers in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, the prospects of any Malay politician occupying one of the key posts in Cabinet do not appear particularly positive. For example, it seems unlikely that environment minister Yaacob Ibrahim, the community’s sole representative in the Cabinet, will advance much further. At this point it is also hard to imagine the crop of younger Malay politicians (which includes Mr Masagos) doing any better than merely replacing Dr Yaacob at their current rate of advancement – they seem unlikely to bag anther Cabinet post, particularly since the last time the community had two ministers was before ex-environment minister Dr Ahmad Mattar retired in the mid-1990s. It might be similarly difficult to replace the current speaker – which is the next most important position held by the Malays – who is probably due to retire soon.
The obvious disconnect
The ruling party is no doubt aware of the Malay community’s dissatisfaction: fielding a question about why no Malay politicians were promoted in the reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assured the press that the current crop of Malay MPs will be advanced if they “measure up”, but alluded to the party’s recruitment difficulties when he stressed that he was “personally focused” on attracting Malay professional into politics. That is clearly a problem: if the PAP is having difficulty getting Chinese and Indians to join the party, it is finding it even harder to induct Malay recruits. That said, it is a problem faced by the opposition as well: at the last election, the biggest opposition party, the Worker’s Party, fielded mostly candidates with professional backgrounds and tertiary qualifications, something that its Malay candidates conspicuously lacked. But it is the PAP who should be the natural receptacle for Malay political talent, given its record in improving the community’s standards of living, its efforts to accommodate the community’s sensitivities and the overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian character of opposition movements in Singapore.
But that does not appear to be the case. One difficulty with trying to recruit Malay professionals is that the pool is relatively small compared with the other ethnic groups – the 2000 census indicated that only 2% of the community attained tertiary qualifications, compared with 16.5% and 12.6% of the Indians and Chinese respectively. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of Malay graduates might tend towards being more liberal and less religious. Those are traits that the conservative PAP leadership could find unacceptable, particularly when, unlike the Chinese or Indians, Malay politicians are often seen as Muslim leaders as well. Dr Yaacob, for example, is also the Minister of Muslim affairs; Mr Zainul had served previously as president of the Islamic Council of Singapore.
Furthermore, the PAP’s target pool of recruits might not be that inclined towards joining the party anyway. For example, Mr Nizam Idris, an economist whom the PAP tried to recruit in 2006, told the press in a recent interview that he had turned the PAP down partly because he “could not live with” the requisite “cheerleading” that was expected of PAP MPs, implying that he did not want to be in a party that demanded strict conformity with the official line. In this regard the party’s innate conservatism might be turning off those with a more liberal bent and who might not share its values, which are likely to be those in the PAP’s target pool of recruits. The situation would also not be helped by perceptions that Malay politicians can’t seem to advance to the top posts in the Cabinet.
More disconcertingly, there might also be perceptions that political engagement seems to be increasingly on the terms of the dominant ethnic group. For instance, Berita Harian’s commentary of 28th March expressed hope that Singapore could develop a team of Malay leaders who were fluent in Mandarin; on the same day it reported Dr Yaacob’s comments that the Malay community had to accept newcomers who neither spoke Malay nor knew the local culture. That might not be something that younger generation of Malay graduates are entirely comfortable with.
It therefore seems likely that the PAP will continue to struggle to renew its class of Malay leaders, though this is helped by the fact that other political parties are probably faring even worse. Still, this is somewhat ironic for a party that first came to power in the 1950s and 1960s with the help of some critical support from the Malay community – one article has highlighted the important role played by the progressive Malay nationalists and trade unionists in the PAP’s rise, particularly during the pre-merger and merger periods1. The PAP may find that it needs such support again to offset disaffection from other quarters should it decide to make good on its hints about calling for snap polls in the current economic gloom.
***
1 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, “Winning and losing Malay support, 1950s and 1960s”, Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-war Singapore (Singapore, NUS Press: 2008), pp. 95-115. Dr Lily Zubaidah was also the author of the “The Singapore Dilemma”, a book on the alleged marginalisation of Malays in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27896.1
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong.”
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong.”
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Jonathan Koh
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong,” said Dr. Roland Cheo, one of the 4 speakers, at the Workers’ Party YouthQuake Forum Series. The topic was on Singapore Education, and it marked the start of the second series of forums organized by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.
Dr. Cheo, a visiting fellow with the Department of Economics at NUS, was rejected 4 times by the National Institute of Education after he graduated from an US university with a double degree at the tender age of 19. At his 4th rejection, he was told by an insider that “it’s because you did not do your A levels”. Disillusioned, he stopped, applying after that. Speaking to an attentive crowd, he argued that outliers tend to get ignored in our system. While the norm tends to perform very well, the outliers are often left behind by the system.
It is a view that Miss Kuik Shiao Yin, creative director of a collective of social enterprises including the well-known education institution School of Thought, concurred with. She also believes that another problem with the education system is how too many students are afraid of failing - a problem perpetuated by a success-driven society and demanding parents. This has bred a generation of Singaporeans too scared of taking risks. Singaporeans are very exam-smart and have fared well consistently when it comes to international rankings of math and science, but generally, not enough focus is placed on providing a creative education. Teachers are constrained from teaching creatively, in part because they are taxed too heavily already, she said.
A more personal opinion was provided by Mr Bernard Chen, secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, who has experienced both JC and polytechnic education. He thinks that the academic benchmark of university admissions is placed too high for polytechnic students - with the average GPA (Grade Point Average) of polytechnic students who have gained entry into local universities at 3.5 to 4 (out of 4). Furthermore, the system seems to be biased - for polytechnic students, 20% of their O Level results determine whether they get into a local university, which seems to be “penalising late bloomers”. JC students’ admissions, on the other hand, depend entirely on A levels. Bernard considers himself fortunate that he’s been accepted into a local university as the top 10% in his cohort - but he believes more can be done for the other 90%, a group he said would be caught in the debt cycle - if they do not receive subsidised university education.
This intellectual forum had its fair share of fun and laughter. For example, when Mr Chia Yeow Tong, a Ph.D Candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, shared his research dissertation on history education in Singapore, he mentioned how there used to be a subject called Education For Living (EFL). Miss Sylvia Lim, chairman of Workers’ Party, who was sitting in the audience appeared to be nodding. Mr. Chia later added that EFL is a subject that “most of us don’t know”, which triggered Miss Lim’s witty comment: “What are you implying?” The audience broke into laughter. Later on, in a response to a question an audience member posed, Mr. Chia also argued that citizenship education in Singapore typically does not have enough focus on teaching democratic principles and individual rights, unlike in Canada.
There were other relevant questions brought up by the audience too. One of them pointed out that some students who have been rejected by local law schools have gotten into top law schools overseas, and quizzed whether that particular acceptance letter from top law schools should be used to appeal for local entrance.
Another pointed out that perhaps Singapore lacks the critical mass and resources to cater to outliers. In response to this, Miss Kuik argued that the problem is not so much that, but that Singaporeans need to champion that it is okay if “you are outstanding beyond the pack” and it “is okay to stand out (in a different area). You can be the David Gan of dog grooming and claim that niche. The question is: do you have the guts?”
On the nature of holding such forums, Mr. Bernard Chen said that YouthQuake Forum Series is about “healthy and constructive policy discourse”, and is not politically motivated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27895.1
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Jonathan Koh
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong,” said Dr. Roland Cheo, one of the 4 speakers, at the Workers’ Party YouthQuake Forum Series. The topic was on Singapore Education, and it marked the start of the second series of forums organized by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.
Dr. Cheo, a visiting fellow with the Department of Economics at NUS, was rejected 4 times by the National Institute of Education after he graduated from an US university with a double degree at the tender age of 19. At his 4th rejection, he was told by an insider that “it’s because you did not do your A levels”. Disillusioned, he stopped, applying after that. Speaking to an attentive crowd, he argued that outliers tend to get ignored in our system. While the norm tends to perform very well, the outliers are often left behind by the system.
It is a view that Miss Kuik Shiao Yin, creative director of a collective of social enterprises including the well-known education institution School of Thought, concurred with. She also believes that another problem with the education system is how too many students are afraid of failing - a problem perpetuated by a success-driven society and demanding parents. This has bred a generation of Singaporeans too scared of taking risks. Singaporeans are very exam-smart and have fared well consistently when it comes to international rankings of math and science, but generally, not enough focus is placed on providing a creative education. Teachers are constrained from teaching creatively, in part because they are taxed too heavily already, she said.
A more personal opinion was provided by Mr Bernard Chen, secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, who has experienced both JC and polytechnic education. He thinks that the academic benchmark of university admissions is placed too high for polytechnic students - with the average GPA (Grade Point Average) of polytechnic students who have gained entry into local universities at 3.5 to 4 (out of 4). Furthermore, the system seems to be biased - for polytechnic students, 20% of their O Level results determine whether they get into a local university, which seems to be “penalising late bloomers”. JC students’ admissions, on the other hand, depend entirely on A levels. Bernard considers himself fortunate that he’s been accepted into a local university as the top 10% in his cohort - but he believes more can be done for the other 90%, a group he said would be caught in the debt cycle - if they do not receive subsidised university education.
This intellectual forum had its fair share of fun and laughter. For example, when Mr Chia Yeow Tong, a Ph.D Candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, shared his research dissertation on history education in Singapore, he mentioned how there used to be a subject called Education For Living (EFL). Miss Sylvia Lim, chairman of Workers’ Party, who was sitting in the audience appeared to be nodding. Mr. Chia later added that EFL is a subject that “most of us don’t know”, which triggered Miss Lim’s witty comment: “What are you implying?” The audience broke into laughter. Later on, in a response to a question an audience member posed, Mr. Chia also argued that citizenship education in Singapore typically does not have enough focus on teaching democratic principles and individual rights, unlike in Canada.
There were other relevant questions brought up by the audience too. One of them pointed out that some students who have been rejected by local law schools have gotten into top law schools overseas, and quizzed whether that particular acceptance letter from top law schools should be used to appeal for local entrance.
Another pointed out that perhaps Singapore lacks the critical mass and resources to cater to outliers. In response to this, Miss Kuik argued that the problem is not so much that, but that Singaporeans need to champion that it is okay if “you are outstanding beyond the pack” and it “is okay to stand out (in a different area). You can be the David Gan of dog grooming and claim that niche. The question is: do you have the guts?”
On the nature of holding such forums, Mr. Bernard Chen said that YouthQuake Forum Series is about “healthy and constructive policy discourse”, and is not politically motivated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27895.1
Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn
Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn
SINGAPORE - The plot surrounding the new AWARE executive committee members’ takeover plans has further unfolded with their mentor, Dr Thio Su Mien coming out of the darkness into the broad daylight. Following their rise to the leadership, events came and went at a dizzy speed. As of now, all eyes will be focused on the 2nd May EOGM, which is a showdown between AWARE’s old guards and the new exco members. That being said, there are certain questions that the new AWARE exco must tackle. The benefits of pondering over such questions is that they allow us to reflect on their implications on our society.
Question 1: If it is the intention of the new AWARE exco to pursue the said agenda (as highlighted by Dr Thio) of presenting the negative side of homosexuality in a revised AWARE sexuality program, how will they achieve this without going against the national educational curriculum objectives of developing attributes such as objectivity, inquisitiveness and integrity in our students? In short, how can the new AWARE exco achieve this agenda of theirs using a pedagogically sound approach without affecting the students’ development as independent enquirers?
Lessons we can learn: In a bid to instill reforms within our education system, our Ministry of Education has taken positive steps to reform the science syllabus at lower secondary level. Thus, in grappling with any biological phenomenon such as sexual preferences for example, the student has to pursue this like any other typical scientist do in making use of core skills involved in scientific research with the correct attributes as mentioned above. The student must be inquisitive, researching on the subject at as many levels as possible, from genes to anatomy and finally at a social level. The student must be objective in assessing whatever findings they have collected. And the student must practise integrity, they cannot be selectively including data which justify their bias and excluding others, which may be relevant and have an impact on their findings. Data manipulation to justify bias should be shut out at all costs. Furthermore, they should be making only conclusions based on the indication of their findings, and not make exaggerated ones beyond the limits of their experiment. An example would be a single observation of a seed’s failure to germinate at a temperature of 18 degrees celcius leading to an exaggerated conclusion that this seed cannot germinate under all temperatures.
Question 2: If there are current AWARE members who are lesbians and/or are supportive of homosexuality, how would their interests by represented?
Question 3: What form of governance does the new AWARE exco prefer?
Lessons we can learn from questions 2 and 3: There are many forms of governance, ranging from theocracy to autocracy and finally democracy. To elaborate further on specific democratic practices, I will only focus on two different aspects of voting - “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system and proportional representation. In the FPTP voting system, it’s a case of winner-takes-all for the majority. The main criticism against the majority winning FPTP system is that the interests of voters, who supported a different proposition from the majority, will never be represented. Proportional representation counters the disadvantages of the FPTP voting system in which the polling outcome is based on the percentage of votes received for each entity. For example, an outcome of an election based on proportional representation practices is that the proportion of seats allocated is based on the proportion of votes received. Thus, if AWARE members are to vote on the issue of homosexuality for instance, much depends on the voting system in place. If it is FPTP, the majority voters win out, but if it is proportional representation, the outcome is completely different. Our Parliamentry Elections system practises FPTP, but it doesn’t mean that civil societies are bound to follow suit.
Question 4: How independent will be AWARE under their stewardship?
Question 5 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Is this AWARE takeover a slippery slope that can encourage other institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to indirectly control civil societies?
Lessons we can learn from questions 4 and 5: It is possible to exploit legal loopholes to launch a takeover of any organization, let alone a civil society. And such can happen if the entity launching the takeover aims to use the civil society to fulfill its own agenda. During such a takeover, the fact that the leadership positions are filled with those who hail from the same organization will inevitably lead to questions regarding the independence of the invaded civil society. Thus, the events at AWARE as a watershed within the civil society scene, albeit a negative one, because it is one on a slippery slope that may lead to more of such attempts to launch “takeover bids”. The good thing about this episode is that it can send out a clear signal to existing civil societies out there to be more savvy with their drafting of constitution to deter such takeover bids. This point has been elaborated on tenuously by my fellow writer, Azfar. For instance, in the case of AWARE, they can be more stringent with their qualifying criterias to vote like the clocking of a certain minimum hours of volunteering experience or membership spanning a minimum period of time.
Question 6 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Are we on a slippery slope that can lead towards the pursuit of religious agendas on a national level, e.g. the potential introduction of creationism within our science curriculum?
Lessons we can learn from question 6: Currently, attempts have been made to influence sexuality education in schools (30 of them to be specific), especially with regards to shifting towards a negative bias against homosexuality. There is no doubt of the religious influence behind the move. Today, we are at the slippery slope with concerted attempts to reform certain aspects of our education in line with the agenda of certain religious groups. What goes tomorrow? Religious-based movements getting their call in reforming our science education curriculum by removing evolution and introducing creationism? The efforts of religious movements in attempting to reform the respective science syllabi according to their agenda has been ongoing in the US. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science syllabus by removing any references to the evolutionary theory. Could that happen to us too? If that really happens, our science education standards will take a backseat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27963.1
SINGAPORE - The plot surrounding the new AWARE executive committee members’ takeover plans has further unfolded with their mentor, Dr Thio Su Mien coming out of the darkness into the broad daylight. Following their rise to the leadership, events came and went at a dizzy speed. As of now, all eyes will be focused on the 2nd May EOGM, which is a showdown between AWARE’s old guards and the new exco members. That being said, there are certain questions that the new AWARE exco must tackle. The benefits of pondering over such questions is that they allow us to reflect on their implications on our society.
Question 1: If it is the intention of the new AWARE exco to pursue the said agenda (as highlighted by Dr Thio) of presenting the negative side of homosexuality in a revised AWARE sexuality program, how will they achieve this without going against the national educational curriculum objectives of developing attributes such as objectivity, inquisitiveness and integrity in our students? In short, how can the new AWARE exco achieve this agenda of theirs using a pedagogically sound approach without affecting the students’ development as independent enquirers?
Lessons we can learn: In a bid to instill reforms within our education system, our Ministry of Education has taken positive steps to reform the science syllabus at lower secondary level. Thus, in grappling with any biological phenomenon such as sexual preferences for example, the student has to pursue this like any other typical scientist do in making use of core skills involved in scientific research with the correct attributes as mentioned above. The student must be inquisitive, researching on the subject at as many levels as possible, from genes to anatomy and finally at a social level. The student must be objective in assessing whatever findings they have collected. And the student must practise integrity, they cannot be selectively including data which justify their bias and excluding others, which may be relevant and have an impact on their findings. Data manipulation to justify bias should be shut out at all costs. Furthermore, they should be making only conclusions based on the indication of their findings, and not make exaggerated ones beyond the limits of their experiment. An example would be a single observation of a seed’s failure to germinate at a temperature of 18 degrees celcius leading to an exaggerated conclusion that this seed cannot germinate under all temperatures.
Question 2: If there are current AWARE members who are lesbians and/or are supportive of homosexuality, how would their interests by represented?
Question 3: What form of governance does the new AWARE exco prefer?
Lessons we can learn from questions 2 and 3: There are many forms of governance, ranging from theocracy to autocracy and finally democracy. To elaborate further on specific democratic practices, I will only focus on two different aspects of voting - “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system and proportional representation. In the FPTP voting system, it’s a case of winner-takes-all for the majority. The main criticism against the majority winning FPTP system is that the interests of voters, who supported a different proposition from the majority, will never be represented. Proportional representation counters the disadvantages of the FPTP voting system in which the polling outcome is based on the percentage of votes received for each entity. For example, an outcome of an election based on proportional representation practices is that the proportion of seats allocated is based on the proportion of votes received. Thus, if AWARE members are to vote on the issue of homosexuality for instance, much depends on the voting system in place. If it is FPTP, the majority voters win out, but if it is proportional representation, the outcome is completely different. Our Parliamentry Elections system practises FPTP, but it doesn’t mean that civil societies are bound to follow suit.
Question 4: How independent will be AWARE under their stewardship?
Question 5 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Is this AWARE takeover a slippery slope that can encourage other institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to indirectly control civil societies?
Lessons we can learn from questions 4 and 5: It is possible to exploit legal loopholes to launch a takeover of any organization, let alone a civil society. And such can happen if the entity launching the takeover aims to use the civil society to fulfill its own agenda. During such a takeover, the fact that the leadership positions are filled with those who hail from the same organization will inevitably lead to questions regarding the independence of the invaded civil society. Thus, the events at AWARE as a watershed within the civil society scene, albeit a negative one, because it is one on a slippery slope that may lead to more of such attempts to launch “takeover bids”. The good thing about this episode is that it can send out a clear signal to existing civil societies out there to be more savvy with their drafting of constitution to deter such takeover bids. This point has been elaborated on tenuously by my fellow writer, Azfar. For instance, in the case of AWARE, they can be more stringent with their qualifying criterias to vote like the clocking of a certain minimum hours of volunteering experience or membership spanning a minimum period of time.
Question 6 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Are we on a slippery slope that can lead towards the pursuit of religious agendas on a national level, e.g. the potential introduction of creationism within our science curriculum?
Lessons we can learn from question 6: Currently, attempts have been made to influence sexuality education in schools (30 of them to be specific), especially with regards to shifting towards a negative bias against homosexuality. There is no doubt of the religious influence behind the move. Today, we are at the slippery slope with concerted attempts to reform certain aspects of our education in line with the agenda of certain religious groups. What goes tomorrow? Religious-based movements getting their call in reforming our science education curriculum by removing evolution and introducing creationism? The efforts of religious movements in attempting to reform the respective science syllabi according to their agenda has been ongoing in the US. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science syllabus by removing any references to the evolutionary theory. Could that happen to us too? If that really happens, our science education standards will take a backseat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27963.1
Updates on PothePanda case: Police yet to reply to blogger’s complaints
Updates on PothePanda case: Police yet to reply to blogger’s complaints
The PothePanda case has stirred considerable controversy in blogosphere ever since we broke the story. While many believed his allegations that he was arrested and interrogated by the police, some were sceptical and even accused us of concocting the story to boost our readership.
Lawyer Chia Ti Lik is currently handling the case. He has posted a brief update here. Will Mr Chia put his reputation at stake if there is no case at all? For those of you who still doubt the claims of PothePanda, please contact Mr Chia directly at his blog to verify for yourself.
Dear readers,
As some of you should know by now, there was an infamous incident in March 2009,where a blogger & regular forumer Gary Tan Yeong Hong,who writes under the moniker “PoThePanda”, was arrested and subjected to a highly unusual interrogation by the Singapore Police Force(SPF).
Gary Tan released a short statement on his blog on the 13/03/09 which detailed the events of 02/03/09.He then conducted a video interview with Wayang Party which was broadcasted on the 23/03/09.
Subsequently, he was informed by the administrator/moderator of Hardwarezone via email,that the SPF had requested the article to be taken down from the website. SPF stated that the reason was because that Gary Tan was lying.
Now this was very unusual, as Gary had demanded the SPF, the ISD and the PAP government to respond publicly if he was lying.
In a police state like Singapore,why didn’t the SPF,the ISD or the PAP government respond to Gary’s statements publicly if they were untrue?
Since that day,Gary had been waiting for the SPF to contact him to follow-up but they did not. Apparently,they had the time to contact Administrators on Internet portals,stating that Gary is lying but they did not have time to contact Gary himself.
After a discussion with his lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, a prominent human rights activist in Singapore, Gary decided to file an official complaint with the SPF. He did so on the 16/04/09 at Paya Lebar NPP.
Subsequently,on the 17/04/09,Gary sent in his statements on the events of 02/03/09,10/03/09 and 01/04/09 to the SPF/CID via their website.He requested an official case to be opened, and stated that he wished to pursue the matter.
He then received an auto-generated reply by the SPF.
It has been more than a week (almost 2 months if you count the day since the video interview) and up till today, nobody from the SPF has contacted Gary Tan Yeong Hong.
For the full details of the statements Gary sent in to the SPF, please visit his blog here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27935.1
Gentle under the warmth of the sun
Gentle under the warmth of the sun
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Andrew Loh / Deborah Choo
South Bridge Road.
The old man parks his trolley by the side of the road as traffic rushes past him. The blistering heat in the late afternoon is relentless. He steps onto the kerb, and heads for the two trash containers put out by the nearby shops. He picks up two cardboard boxes, slits the bottoms open, and folds them. Walking back to his push-cart, he stacks them on top of the rest of the cardboards. The old man returns to the trash to look for discarded soft drink cans.
“Uncle, how are you,” Deborah says to him, apprehensive at his stern demeanour. He looks at us and seems a little bewildered. “Uncle, you’re collecting cardboards?” Deborah asks in Chinese. “Yes,” he replies. Dressed in a simple yellow t-shirt and a pair of brown shorts, his fair complexion hides his year of working on the streets of Singapore. As it turns out, the old man is very soft-spoken with gentle mannerisms. “I am 60 years old,” he tells us in his native Hokkien. We move in closer to hear him amidst the cacophony of noise from the traffic. His calloused hands, thick and rough fingers, and the lines on his face perhaps evidence of a lifetime of physical toil. “I used to work as a sweeper at Tiong Bahru market,” he says. He left because a new employer had taken over. That was a year ago. Now, he collects cardboards and sells them for 2.5 cents a kati.
He is on the streets seven to eight hours everyday, starting from 4pm. “Now prices [for cardboards] aren’t that good,” he explains. “And when it rains, I cannot collect them.” Thus he also collects drink cans to supplement his income. He ends his day at 11pm and takes a taxi home. “It costs about fifteen dollars for the trip to and from my house,” he says. We guess that he takes the taxi because he has to bring his trolley along. Our curious eyes spot a bunch of keys hanging from his belt. They’re for locking up his trolley at night, we later learned. He hopes to sell it, because it is rusty and rickety, for four or five dollars and get a new one. It will make pushing it easier, he says. That would be a great help under such scorching conditions during the day.
The old man lives in a room in a rented flat. It was recommended to him by a friend. It costs him $250 a month. Why doesn’t he rent one from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) which would be much cheaper? He explains that he has tried applying for one. But his application was rejected. “I am alone. So they say I cannot rent,” he tells us. “They say you must have a family or two people at least,” he says, indicating with his two fingers. Never married and thus has no children to depend on, he couldn’t find another person to apply with. However, he disclosed that he receives about $100 to $200 from the government through public assistance but does not want to elaborate further.
He makes a little more than $10 a day. After deducting his monthly expenses, he doesn’t have much left. He is living from hand to mouth. What if he is no longer able to fend for himself? “I will just go to the old folks’ home,” he says in a rather matter-of-fact manner. “What else can I do?”
He secures the cardboards on his trolley and prepares to move to his next collection point. He inspects the plastic bag holding the drink cans one more time to make sure everything is in place. “I have to go now,” he says. We thank him for speaking to us, as the small group of tourists and locals at the traffic lights continue to stare. “Take care, Uncle,” Andrew says to him. The old man smiles and soon he dissolves into the rest of the traffic – pushing his worn-down push cart along the streams of cars in the afternoon heat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27934.1
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Andrew Loh / Deborah Choo
South Bridge Road.
The old man parks his trolley by the side of the road as traffic rushes past him. The blistering heat in the late afternoon is relentless. He steps onto the kerb, and heads for the two trash containers put out by the nearby shops. He picks up two cardboard boxes, slits the bottoms open, and folds them. Walking back to his push-cart, he stacks them on top of the rest of the cardboards. The old man returns to the trash to look for discarded soft drink cans.
“Uncle, how are you,” Deborah says to him, apprehensive at his stern demeanour. He looks at us and seems a little bewildered. “Uncle, you’re collecting cardboards?” Deborah asks in Chinese. “Yes,” he replies. Dressed in a simple yellow t-shirt and a pair of brown shorts, his fair complexion hides his year of working on the streets of Singapore. As it turns out, the old man is very soft-spoken with gentle mannerisms. “I am 60 years old,” he tells us in his native Hokkien. We move in closer to hear him amidst the cacophony of noise from the traffic. His calloused hands, thick and rough fingers, and the lines on his face perhaps evidence of a lifetime of physical toil. “I used to work as a sweeper at Tiong Bahru market,” he says. He left because a new employer had taken over. That was a year ago. Now, he collects cardboards and sells them for 2.5 cents a kati.
He is on the streets seven to eight hours everyday, starting from 4pm. “Now prices [for cardboards] aren’t that good,” he explains. “And when it rains, I cannot collect them.” Thus he also collects drink cans to supplement his income. He ends his day at 11pm and takes a taxi home. “It costs about fifteen dollars for the trip to and from my house,” he says. We guess that he takes the taxi because he has to bring his trolley along. Our curious eyes spot a bunch of keys hanging from his belt. They’re for locking up his trolley at night, we later learned. He hopes to sell it, because it is rusty and rickety, for four or five dollars and get a new one. It will make pushing it easier, he says. That would be a great help under such scorching conditions during the day.
The old man lives in a room in a rented flat. It was recommended to him by a friend. It costs him $250 a month. Why doesn’t he rent one from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) which would be much cheaper? He explains that he has tried applying for one. But his application was rejected. “I am alone. So they say I cannot rent,” he tells us. “They say you must have a family or two people at least,” he says, indicating with his two fingers. Never married and thus has no children to depend on, he couldn’t find another person to apply with. However, he disclosed that he receives about $100 to $200 from the government through public assistance but does not want to elaborate further.
He makes a little more than $10 a day. After deducting his monthly expenses, he doesn’t have much left. He is living from hand to mouth. What if he is no longer able to fend for himself? “I will just go to the old folks’ home,” he says in a rather matter-of-fact manner. “What else can I do?”
He secures the cardboards on his trolley and prepares to move to his next collection point. He inspects the plastic bag holding the drink cans one more time to make sure everything is in place. “I have to go now,” he says. We thank him for speaking to us, as the small group of tourists and locals at the traffic lights continue to stare. “Take care, Uncle,” Andrew says to him. The old man smiles and soon he dissolves into the rest of the traffic – pushing his worn-down push cart along the streams of cars in the afternoon heat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27934.1
Aware: Put aside differences and move on
April 26, 2009
'Put aside differences and move on'
 |  | Madam Suseela Singaram says it is quite common to see challengers in any election and is not surprised by what happened at Aware. -- ST PHOTO: TERENCE TAN |
Union leader and committee member of the NTUC Women's Development Secretariat
'Coming from the union sector, I was not surprised by what happened at Aware. It is quite common to see challengers in any election. I have personally witnessed new groups coming in to challenge existing leaderships in unions. The new group may feel that there were things that were not done properly or they may think they can do a better job.
What surprised me about this saga was that new members were allowed to stand in the election. In some organisations, you must be a member for at least 12 months before you can contest. So this is something that the Aware leaders may need to look into.
Also, I think the comments made by lawyer Thio Su Mien on Aware's comprehensive sexuality education programme at the new guard's press conference last Thursday will wake many parents up to the moral values that are being taught to their children in schools.
We are an Asian society, after all. Personally, I still believe in a one man, one woman, nuclear family concept. And it's not just Christians who believe that.
If what Dr Thio said about the programme is true, what was the Ministry of Education (MOE) doing to allow this in schools? You mean MOE did not filter such programmes? I'm shocked.
Aware is an established group. I've personally read their papers and seen their programmes, and what they have been doing is valuable to society. Whether it has lost its focus is best answered by the two warring groups.
I would encourage both sides to put aside their differences and move on, or the group will end up getting the wrong attention. Let the new leaders prove themselves, and if they don't do a good job, challenge them at the next AGM.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27887.1
Aware: It was like a cocktail party
| Tussle For Aware CONTRASTS | |||||
| It was like a cocktail party | |||||
| It was a press conference that was markedly different from the one at Raffles Town Club the day before. Calm, cheerful, almost gleeful, the old guard of Aware met the media yesterday to give out their version of the facts. | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
YOU could feel the difference, the moment you stepped out of the lift at the fifth floor of Junction8 office tower.
At 6pm yesterday, the press conference organised by the Aware veterans was about to begin. There was easy banter, cheerful chatter and warm smiles that lit up the room like a cocktail party. Unlike the tense, terse affair which was the press conference given by the new exco on Thursday, this one was decidedly different. You could almost smell the scent of victory. You could almost spot a hint of glee in the eyes of the old guard members. On Thursday night, the new exco had chaired an emotion-charged press conference at the Raffles Town Club that, among other things, was disrupted by a heckler. There were shouting matches as they stumbled over their answers and contradicted one another. At the end of it all, many questions were left hanging. They had messed up big time. And the old guard, experienced old hands that they were, knew it. In the office of the Women's Initiative for Ageing Successfully, a converted dance studio where the press conference was held, they moved about with ease and confidence, offering drinks and smiles aplenty. There was none of the distrust, fear and apprehension that hung in the air of the new exco's conference. 'We are not here for a tit-for-tat...' said former president Dr Kanwaljit Soin, as the press conference began. 'We are giving out fact sheets and letting the facts speak for themselves.' That set the tone for the evening - dignified, proper, yet casual. 'We do not have a lesbian desk, so to speak,' said DrSoin to laughter, as she used newsroom jargon to answer a reporter's question about whether the old exco was pro-homosexuality. As members of the panel took turns to speak up passionately about the saga, Dr Soin spoke again, to laughter: 'You may be here for a long time... we hope you have tah pao (slang for ordered out) your dinner.' Charm offensive The charm offensive was clearly on but for the old guard, many of whom have been at Aware for eons. The rapport between the panel of 11 Aware members and the media was apparent. Perhaps that was why the ugliness of the whole affair, the name-calling, the heckling, the dispute at the Aware centre that had required police intervention - twice - on Thursday night, was far from everyone's mind. Instead, it was the experience and the diversity of the old exco that stood out. The 11 panel members was made up of nine women and two men. They came dressed in saris and smart suits. There were Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. They had been quick on the uptake, organising this press conference immediately after the new exco spoke up. And they sat there, smiling, yet ready to draw swords.
3 questions on everyone's lips WAS OLD EXCO PRO-GAY? 'We are anti-discrimination. We are anti-anti-anything.' WHAT IS AT STAKE? 'What has happened at Aware is a threat to S'pore's pluralistic society.' ON DEATH THREATS 'We are very sorry that Josie (the new president) has received death threats. We do not think that such activities should take place in a civilised society.' |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27932.5
Aware: DR NOBODY Dr Thio who?
Tussle For Aware
DR NOBODY Dr Thio who?
She burst onto the Aware stage at the press conference of the new guard, claiming to have 'mentored' most of them. But most of the old guard don't even remember who she was SHE gave herself the grand title of 'Feminist Mentor', claiming to have been involved with Aware in its early days. 26 April 2009
SHE gave herself the grand title of 'Feminist Mentor', claiming to have been involved with Aware in its early days.
But at yesterday's press conference, few claimed to know her.
On Thursday night, Dr Thio Su Mien, a former law dean, made a surprise appearance at the press conference of the new exco at Raffles Town Club.
She sat at one end of the table, denying suggestions that she was the mastermind of the takeover at Aware.
Her appearance added a new twist to the already convoluted saga.
Dr Thio is the mother of Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann, who has spoken up strongly against homosexuality in Parliament.
'I'm not sure. I know who are the founding members of Aware and I don't remember seeing Dr Thio at any of the meetings or her name mentioned,' said former president Dr Kanwaljit Soin, who was a founding member of the 24-year-old Aware.
She added to laughter: 'But I'm not known for a good memory. I have not heard of Dr Thio as a feminist but, you know, we do have closet feminists.'
The microphone was passed to founding member Ms Lai Ah Eng.
Laughter
'I do not recall... what's her name...' began Ms Lai earnestly, before turning to the rest of the panel, which broke out in laughter.
When reminded, Ms Lai prepared to continue what she was trying to say, but was interrupted by Dr Soin.
'Should we delete that?' she said, turning to legal advisor Dr Mark Goh in mock horror.
'No, we should leave that!' came the reply.
Ms Lai went on to explain that she was not familiar with Dr Thio, although she has read articles written by her.
Panel members mentioned that they have heard her name before, here and there, but no way was she the Feminist Mentor she claimed to be.
'I know of her... I might have met her at one or two social occasions, but I don't know her,' said Dr Soin.
'It is important to have a institutional memory of Aware, of what Aware did in the past 24 years, instead of allowing one particular item, as raised by Dr Thio, to be the sole criteria by which Aware is judged,' said Ms Lai.
The answers were quickly snuffed out by MrGoh, who interjected halfway, saying that the panel was not here to discuss Dr Thio.
Despite further probes by the media, the topic quickly moved on to other related matters.
'As a staunch Roman Catholic, I'm disturbed by this act that seems to be motivated by Christians...' said veteran member Corrina Lau, rebutting Dr Thio's stance that the old exco was pro-homosexuality.
'Christianity is about love.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27932.4
Aware: He's our 'legal adviser'
| Tussle For Aware MR CONTRARY | |||||
| He's our 'legal adviser' | |||||
| He sat impassively while the ladies smiled and joked. Just as the new guard had a mysterious figure, the new guard had a new character of its own. Who is he? | |||||
| |||||
TWO press conferences, two mysterious characters, both dressed in black, sitting at far ends of the table, seemingly apart, yet keeping an invisible hold on things.
On Thursday night, at the press conference of the new exco, Dr Thio Su Mien, mother of Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann, was a picture of calm and serenity amid the red eyes and quivering voices of the exco members. Last night, a man sat sternly at one end of the long table, where 10 members of Aware sat smiling. He was Mr Mark Goh, a lawyer, introduced by the old exco as 'our legal adviser'. They had promised openness and transparency. It made the presence of the man odd and unexpected. Before the press conference began, he had given a briefing to all the members of the old exco, largely out of sight of reporters, who had taken their seats inside the room. Throughout the two-hour-plus press conference, Mr Goh sat there, dressed in a no-nonsense attire of black shirt and ripped jeans, watching the proceedings with hawk eyes. Amid the easy banter and pally jokes, he listened, mostly stoic. From time to time, as the ladies elaborated on their answers for the media, venturing into uncertain territory, they slowly turned their eyes to him, looking for approval. Silence would mean approval. Disapproval would come in a short, sharp interjection. Former president Dr Kanwaljit Soin was describing the takeover when she paused in mid-sentence, looked to Mr Goh, and finally finished wrapping up her sentence cautiously: '...shall I say it... a slightly stealthy takeover...' Later, when The New Paper probed the panel on the relationship of Dr Thio to the old exco, Mr Goh stopped the panelists' answers in mid-sentence. 'We are not here to talk about Dr Thio,' he said curtly. His was the steel beneath the ladies' smiles. Later, as the media congregated to interview MsSchutz Lee, the Aware Centre manager who was sacked on Thursday night, Mr Goh stood beside her, stern like a bouncer. He stopped her in mid-sentence once, as she was elaborating on the reasons behind her sacking, saying that whatever she had just said would be off the record. Mr Censor? Then, leaning over a reporter from Today newspaper, he said: 'Strike that out.' The man was there for good reason. 'In this potential war of words, we do not want to say anything that will open us up to legal action,' said former Aware vice-president Margaret Thomas. Dr Thio is, after all, a former law dean and her daughter a law professor at the National University of Singapore. 'The openness and transparency is still there,' explained Ms Thomas. 'We have nothing to hide. We make available the facts... these are the values that Aware has held on to throughout the years. 'If it is something we are able to talk about, we will. But if we are not able to, we will also say so openly.' But for a couple of hours last night, it almost didn't seem so. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27932.3
Aware: 'Girls told how to say no to sex'
Tussle For Aware
CONTROVERSY
'Girls told how to say no to sex'
Aware's school sexuality programme told children it's okay to be gay, say its new leaders. But what was really being taught in schools? Teachers and parents also give their views
ONE of his students was taunted, bullied and called a 'bapok' (effeminate) by his schoolmates.
By Liew Hanqing
26 April 2009
ONE of his students was taunted, bullied and called a 'bapok' (effeminate) by his schoolmates.
This incident prompted Alex, a secondary school teacher, to seek help in educating students on the social aspects of sex and sexuality.
So he called Aware.
Alex declined to be named because teachers are not allowed to speak to the press without permission.
The secondary school in the East where Alex teaches is among the 12 schools here which run Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme.
The programme has been questioned by Aware's new leadership. Members are unhappy that it seems to promote in schools the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
In an ice-breaker activity used in the programme, students are advised that words such as 'homosexual', 'pre-marital' and 'anal sex' are considered neutral - neither positive nor negative.
Said Alex: 'The issue is not how these words are being classified. The important thing is educating students that homosexuality is something real and that they should not look down on somebody just because he or she is homosexual.'
He added that it was important that sexuality education programmes should discourage indiscriminate sexual experimentation among students.
Alex said the programme is pitched at Secondary 2 students at his school, many of whom are from the Normal (Technical) stream.
He said such programmes are necessary because students are beginning to experiment with sex at a much younger age than before.
He said: 'In the past, smoking was what kids used to experiment with at Sec2. Now, it's sex.'
Alex said female students who had attended the CSE programme had told him they were told how to say 'no' to sex. They also went through hands-on activities like learning to use a condom.
He added that the speakers did not delve much into the issue of homosexuality. Male students and teachers were also not allowed to attend the talk for girls.
Alex said he felt sexuality education programmes - regardless of who runs them - are important for students at a young age.
In the past five years alone, more than 20 of his students have had abortions, he said.
He said: 'Students need to be educated on the consequences of their actions and to know that even if they do get into a bad situation, there is a way out.'
But Mr Koh Yong Chiah, principal of Jurong Junior College, feels differently.
Eastern values
He told The New Paper: 'Ultimately, Singapore is still a society that follows Eastern moral values.
'From a human rights perspective, I am not against it (homosexuality), but I feel it is not right to tell students in school that homosexuality is okay.'
He added, however, that it is acceptable to educate students against stopping people from being in homosexual relationships.
Another secondary school teacher took a more moderate stand, suggesting that the programme be targeted at older students, who are 'more ready to discuss and learn about sexuality issues'.
She said that many schools - including her own - now run sexuality workshops for Sec2 students, in tandem with their sex education curriculum.
She said: 'But learning about the biological aspect of sex is different from learning about sexuality and its social implications.
'I would be apprehensive about telling teenagers to take a stand about homosexuality at such a young age.'
She added that it would, however, be a good move to equip teachers with the necessary counselling skills should students approach them to talk about issues related to sex and homosexuality.
Parents The New Paper spoke to had mixed responses to the CSE programme.
Ms Doreen Pang, 44, who has a 17-year-old son, said she 'would not accept' school sexuality programmes which consider homosexuality acceptable.
She said in Mandarin: 'I believe the schools should still educate students on traditional family values.
'Homosexuality is something that cannot be changed, but schools should not be telling children that it is okay.'
Another parent, Mr Leonard Wee, 45, who has a daughter in Sec3, said he had nothing against students being educated on homosexuality.
He said: 'It's very real, and we can't just pretend it doesn't exist. Classifying certain buzz words as 'neutral' isn't going to tip straight students over the edge and turn them gay.
'The most important thing is that students are taught how to behave responsibly when it comes to sex and that they know what they are getting themselves into.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27932.2
CONTROVERSY
'Girls told how to say no to sex'
Aware's school sexuality programme told children it's okay to be gay, say its new leaders. But what was really being taught in schools? Teachers and parents also give their views
ONE of his students was taunted, bullied and called a 'bapok' (effeminate) by his schoolmates.
By Liew Hanqing
26 April 2009
ONE of his students was taunted, bullied and called a 'bapok' (effeminate) by his schoolmates.
This incident prompted Alex, a secondary school teacher, to seek help in educating students on the social aspects of sex and sexuality.
So he called Aware.
Alex declined to be named because teachers are not allowed to speak to the press without permission.
The secondary school in the East where Alex teaches is among the 12 schools here which run Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme.
The programme has been questioned by Aware's new leadership. Members are unhappy that it seems to promote in schools the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
In an ice-breaker activity used in the programme, students are advised that words such as 'homosexual', 'pre-marital' and 'anal sex' are considered neutral - neither positive nor negative.
Said Alex: 'The issue is not how these words are being classified. The important thing is educating students that homosexuality is something real and that they should not look down on somebody just because he or she is homosexual.'
He added that it was important that sexuality education programmes should discourage indiscriminate sexual experimentation among students.
Alex said the programme is pitched at Secondary 2 students at his school, many of whom are from the Normal (Technical) stream.
He said such programmes are necessary because students are beginning to experiment with sex at a much younger age than before.
He said: 'In the past, smoking was what kids used to experiment with at Sec2. Now, it's sex.'
Alex said female students who had attended the CSE programme had told him they were told how to say 'no' to sex. They also went through hands-on activities like learning to use a condom.
He added that the speakers did not delve much into the issue of homosexuality. Male students and teachers were also not allowed to attend the talk for girls.
Alex said he felt sexuality education programmes - regardless of who runs them - are important for students at a young age.
In the past five years alone, more than 20 of his students have had abortions, he said.
He said: 'Students need to be educated on the consequences of their actions and to know that even if they do get into a bad situation, there is a way out.'
But Mr Koh Yong Chiah, principal of Jurong Junior College, feels differently.
Eastern values
He told The New Paper: 'Ultimately, Singapore is still a society that follows Eastern moral values.
'From a human rights perspective, I am not against it (homosexuality), but I feel it is not right to tell students in school that homosexuality is okay.'
He added, however, that it is acceptable to educate students against stopping people from being in homosexual relationships.
Another secondary school teacher took a more moderate stand, suggesting that the programme be targeted at older students, who are 'more ready to discuss and learn about sexuality issues'.
She said that many schools - including her own - now run sexuality workshops for Sec2 students, in tandem with their sex education curriculum.
She said: 'But learning about the biological aspect of sex is different from learning about sexuality and its social implications.
'I would be apprehensive about telling teenagers to take a stand about homosexuality at such a young age.'
She added that it would, however, be a good move to equip teachers with the necessary counselling skills should students approach them to talk about issues related to sex and homosexuality.
Parents The New Paper spoke to had mixed responses to the CSE programme.
Ms Doreen Pang, 44, who has a 17-year-old son, said she 'would not accept' school sexuality programmes which consider homosexuality acceptable.
She said in Mandarin: 'I believe the schools should still educate students on traditional family values.
'Homosexuality is something that cannot be changed, but schools should not be telling children that it is okay.'
Another parent, Mr Leonard Wee, 45, who has a daughter in Sec3, said he had nothing against students being educated on homosexuality.
He said: 'It's very real, and we can't just pretend it doesn't exist. Classifying certain buzz words as 'neutral' isn't going to tip straight students over the edge and turn them gay.
'The most important thing is that students are taught how to behave responsibly when it comes to sex and that they know what they are getting themselves into.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27932.2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)