Lee Boon Yang rambles, I ramble, it's a ramblefest | speculation

Reference complete article here

Govt promises review of new media, 'lighter touch' in next GE

Speaking at the 5th Annual PR Academy Conference on new media, Dr Lee said the Government accepts that Internet and new media are evolving and even more people will be net-savvy in five years' time.

Fair enough.

'Moving forward, we will consider how to better embrace these changes so that by the next GE, we may be able to adopt a lighter touch approach during the election period.'

Nah, you've got a pretty light touch. Seeing as the forum that is run on your own website is full of anti-PAP trolls, I think it's fair to say that the touch was very light. In fact, one was tempted to say non-existent, and when I say non-existent touch, I mean non-existent control, unless you count singling out selected individuals to give the impression that you were paying attention.

I must say, this sounds better than the "manage" bit by Disarray Chua.

'The emergence of new media platforms and the fact that many of our young people are tech-savvy supported such intense interest. Many also see the new media as increasing the political space to speak up on the issues brought up during the election campaign,' he said.

'I accept that some will argue that we should let the people be the judge and form their own opinion by accessing all sorts of information and arguments. I agree that this is not without merit. But it is only valid when information available on the Internet is equally reliable and accurate.

He did not. *close eyes, open eyes* He did.

Do any of these people know anything about the internet other than the email? Somehow I think not. I can't imagine the cabinet ministers flipping through Rockson after a hard day's work, or some MP reading the Daily Kos after a hard day's not turning up at Parliament.

For my own reference, the rebuttal points are:

1. Equally reliable ..as... what? What is this golden standard that he brings up? Could it be MSM? Like, oh, Channel News Asia? This would be the same Channel News Asia that doctored website photos before flashing them on the news?
2. Generally, in academia, supervisors encourage the students to read widely, and read intensively. Good and bad. This means reading Myth of the Lazy Native, and holding your nose before touching the absolute dreck that is The Clash of Civilisations. The reason behind this is simple - you need to be aware of what is available, and existing arguments - and learning to use your brains to decide which is right, and form your views.
3. The situation in point 2 isn't exclusive to academia, it's what people do in life as well. Why is it that only in political issues that bad information is so insidious and infectious as to instantly burrow into the reader's mind and reprogram them entirely?

I'm just wondering - how far does new media actually affect the way people vote? After all, the point has been brought up time and again that sometimes preaching through new media is preaching to the converted. And the thing about the internet is that you can pretty much pick what you want to hear as well.

And what about young people? Wasn't it announced that young people lovvvvvvvvved the government and voted for them? Aww... is someone worried that they won't be loved no more next time?

The rest of the article was fairly run-of-the-mill, and reiteration of what was said before: that young people being young should be allowed to run loose on the Internet (i like the way they've managed to take a right, and turn it into a privilege), except during election season, in case of "undesirable situations". Newsflash: undesirable situations happened. My MP got reinstated in a walkover.

The point about the PAP getting more involved in new media intrigued though. How about Mr White: The Persistantly Political Podcast?

Read more!

Two World Wars and One World Cup | football mania

...fuck Singapore politics. The World Cup is coming. And as Clifford Geertz would have agreed, international sport is a mirror of international relations, a lens with which we peer through and discern truths about the society we live in.

GO ENGLAND!!!

(they're so going to lose)

I will also say that the second best part of football season is the ads. *humms da-da-da* bring on the lederhosen, I say.

"Da-Da-Da" - Bavaria FIFA World Cup 2006



Coke ad, rivalling FIFA sponser Pepsi


It's the World Cup after a 4 year hiatus - and once again, time is on our side.

Read more!

WP Serangoon pledge recitation

I still haven't figured out the legalities of it, but what the heck, there are about a thousand Singaporeans who are going down with me.

This is my recording of the pledge recitation that took place during the Worker's Party rally at Serangoon Stadium on May 5, 2006. Sylvia Lim led, then Low led the Chinese portion which I didn't record. I took awhile to put this up because I didn't know how to edit a video.

Incidentally the reason why the video was so shakey at the beginning was because I was using my right hand to hold it up. Since we've been taught since primary school that we need to say the pledge with hand over heart, my hand took on a life of its own and kept wanting to come down.

(I wonder if there's any truth to the rumour that they started the hand over heart thing so as to catch Jehovah's Witnesses?)

Read more!

Two stories | speculation

Disclaimer: I am a political observer novice. I have never denied it, except when I was explaining to my friends rather vehemently about why having an Alternative Party is good, and I may have made up shit to persuade them. For which I apologise, but would like to add in mitigation that I didn't do any harm since none of them were in a position to vote anyway.

(They are still talking to me. Thank goodness elections is every 5 years or so.)

Something I observed over the last couple of weeks that I'm blogging about because I want to remember it, is about what makes an event blogworthy. Two things sparked it off - the Bilahari Kausikan versus Gayle Goh, and Denise Phua versus everyone that the money-grubbing-nouveau-riche-eugenics-program aka NUSS could get to come down.

Recounting:
Bilahari, Second Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gave a talk to JC students, caused Gayle Goh to be "flabbergasted" at his apparent harshness of words, especially with regards to the acknowlegment that elderly employment is a perennial problem, since his generation wasn't about to "conveniently die". Other things that caused disgruntlement included the basic self-interest and "siege mentality" that governed Singapore foreign policy. Ms Goh later blogged about it and her feelings articulately, and her blog was picked up by Tomorrow.sg. Things snowballed, and Bilahari later wrote a letter of apology to her.

(On a personal note, said letter of apology was an excellent example of why Bilahari earned his stripes as a diplomat, since he managed to, well, not apologise while giving the impression that he had.

Denise Phua speaks at a forum thatIwasnotatbecauseNUSSisfucked - anyway, in the process she explained that she was shocked when she went online that 80% of the content was anti-PAP. She also suggested that the PAP should look into correcting this imbalance, and "managing" the Internet. Singapore bloggers howled hysterically with laughter, and proceed to complain about idiocies of walkover newbie MPs, censorship, and also change her name to Desiree in one case

(Desiree is an excellent name, but if you say it fast, it becomes Disarray. Freudian?)

One thing that struck me is this - well, two. Firstly, the ST picked up the story about Gayle Goh, and Ignatius Low turned it into a David-versus Goliath piece. Denise Phua's incident was reported but not commented on, with the reporter choosing to leave the quote intact and letting Singapore decide on what to think.

Secondly, Yawning Bread and Mr Wang picked up the Denise Phua piece, but not the Gayle Goh one. A quick survey of the more prominent political blogs suggested that none of them had picked it up. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm underpaid and I owe the university 46k. Toss me the requisite 12.90 per hour, and I'll research it better)

Stream of concious reasoning here: The Bilahari one was never about Bilahari. It's about Gayle Goh, the narrative is the one of "spunky fearless youth" tells it to "the Man". And you know that David wins, because of the apology. Never mind that the letter never apologised, but did the equivalent of patting David on the head. The David-Goliath story fit what people like to hear, it made the ruling party look good, it was heart-warming, and it was PR served to them on a plate.

Bilahari didn't get picked up by the more prominent political blogs, except in the Gayle Goh context. The reason - he never dropped the ball. He'd done his job, and done it well, and by all accounts, was well-versed in his area of expertise. (This is from what I read, for all I know my MFA friends are going to start screaming about how he steals the office donuts.)

Denise Phua didn't get picked up by MSM because she had dropped the ball. I won't go into detail about how abyssmally the ball had dropped, because Yawning Bread and Mr Wang have done so excellently. It got carefully ignored by MSM, and that's where bloggers come in - to fill in the gaps and use their position to say what MSM can't or won't.

The doyennes of the political blogs picked it up because it was blogworthy. Ms Phua's mistake was worthy of comment, because it was representative of many issues that people have with the PAP, and because it was potentially indicative of party views, the quality of new MPs, and much more. It was political.


Bilahari's didn't get picked up by the political bloggers because it was fluff, and got picked up by MSM because it was human interest. Ms Phua's got picked up by the bloggers and was ignored by MSM because there was blood on the floor.

------------

Disclaimer Part 2: I'm fully prepared to also believe that the reason why it didn't get picked up is because Alex Au had a flu. This is ultimately speculation.

Then again, there's a reason why the university paid out 46k to hear people speculate away.

Read more!

Singapore Idol begins | writing despite myself

I am watching Singapore Idol, mainly because the Partner wants to watch it. I am posting that piece of information so that Partner will Feel Bad. Also, in unrelated news, I have never been to Bali but would like to go.

Anyway, actually I used to follow American Idol off and on, so no big. Didn't catch the first Singapore idol - can't remember why, but was pleased as punch that Taufik won.

The Girls
I happened to be involved in the FHM Girl Next Door competition this year, so the girls threw up a few familiar faces, including Chanelle. And I will say this: everything that happened in the space of the competition...well, let's just say that I don't think the bizarre little petty "who gets the room" spat initiated by Chanelle versus Geraldine was due to editing. Some of those girls can be just that bizarrely stupid.

So.. I was kinda glad when Charmaine, Chanelle's sister got through but not Chanelle. At the audition, I thought Charmaine had the better voice, but Chanelle had the looks. And as the half-assed cringeworthy poledance showed, Chanelle's just a bit too used to using her body to talk.

People to look out for: Jasmine, Rahimah, Meryl. Meryl's undoubtedly good, and her quality of voice isn't entirely due to vocal training. But I'm willing to bet money that this isn't the first or last time she's sung public - glancing at her bio, church choir's a good bet - and she's had training. Concerns - is there much more to improve, and has Meryl hit a wall? On the other hand, she's got the pretty face and sings well, so she's the equivalent of the PAP when it comes to voters. Also, what's with the bizarre faintly-creepy mommy ties? I mean, ok, she's young and all that, and her mum looks tai-tai so she's probably close to mummy - but all that crying on Gurmit's shoulder about disappointing her mum after she gave an excellent performance that was praised by the judges?

Ploy to gain sympathy votes, or just really emotional? I'm going for b) since she was probably stressed.

Jasmine and Rahimah - good, strong voices that would probably improve after training. Rahimah seems like a girl's girl, and a boy's boy- she cracked me up with her cheerful "Um.. the song was running through my head all night.. i'm going to count that as rehersal time, ok?" Probably won't win because Jasmine and Meryl beat her in the looks department, but I'd like her to go far.

Jasmine and Meryl cite Aguilera as a favourite artist, while Rahimah's got Shakira. So they're ok in that department. Rahimah's coming across as the boho type, which could work in her favour since she's not going to win votes in the pop tart department.

My favourite for now: Rahimah. Rahimah (and Jasmine to a lesser extent) has good interpretive skills, and know how to make emotion come through the song. Meryl's bordering on soul-less - which is in line with her mummy-crafted image.

The Boys
The only one I remember is Jonathan Leong. Whom I taught last year. Heh. He's got a good voice, and he is quite the charmer in real life as well, and it's coming through in the interviews. I found him a nice enough boy when I was teaching him, and the things that I did rip him over are between him and me.

Favourites to win: Jonathan versus Meryl.

Read more!

Definitions | on waking up

WTF is idealism anyway? Note to self: cucup merancap tulisan. Or maybe I mean tulisan dilocok. No, maybe tulisan rancapkan.

Read more!

Introspective indulgences | All about me

There are times when I regret that I am essentially holding down two jobs right now. Two and a half when you consider the extras, and paid for about 1.5 of them. There's so much more I could do if I was holding a real job - Bhutan, for example, - and other little projects that are inevitably kept on hold because you realise that if you don't finish the thesis you're going to owe NUS some 46K.

Bugger the passion about my subject, I tell you. Money is a damn good motivator.

I realise that the sentiment is less than idealistic - after all, aren't post grads supposed to be seeking higher truths, whether in fuel cells or Derrida, a situation that would suggest a certain idealism (not in the philophical sense) about the people who decide to pursue a degree course with high opportunity cost, in the hopes that they can make a difference to the sum of world knowledge. And maybe tenure.

But they aren't idealists. This isn't news, but I feel obliged to write it down anyway, to remind myself of this. Words have power of their own, they frame little realities in text and syntax, till you're faced with a crude mirror of your own amorphous thoughts. Faced with the mirror, you are forced to face the mirror.

And then you wonder what happened. When did you start accepting pragmatism and abandoning idealism? When did you stop wanting to know why the world didn't perform as promised, and start learning about the world to see how it needed changing?

And when did you realise that you had changed?

As an analogy; paraphrased from the wonderful BitchPhD: "There comes a time in every man's life when he stops finding out what women want, and starts finding out what his woman wants."

This realisation comes in bits and pieces, as do many things in life, fragments of a pattern of a larger meaning that your intuitive mind works to put together.

(or just mine. I'm slow, ok? I'm ENTJ. We're like that. Alright, it's just me. )

A fragment of this came at the Mary Turnbull talk organised by the Asia Research seminar. Mary Turnbull is a darling of a British academic - white hair and white lace, hint of antique rose and tweed - and she's written a definitive book on Singapore history. Political history - not unusual, since most histories first written are from the political aspect.

Attending: Drs. Lysa Hong, Albert Lau, Edwin Thumboo, Tony Reid, Chua Beng Huat, Geoff Wade, the entire Singapore History museum board, Iskandar Mudin, Chua Ai Lin, Sim Chi Yin, the general local postgrad community, assorted honour years.

So you get an idea of what the talk/seminar was pitched at.

There were also a few history teachers, and a few ACJC students. Happens occasionally: the history teachers from JC are always trying to shove students into NUS lectures, and the NUS lecturers are always trying to politely tell them that they didn't mind, exactly, but there are people sitting on the floor and subcription to the module is overwhelming, so if you didn't mind..?

After Mary and Lysa and Albert had spoken, there was a Q&A. Questions raised; the impact of great man history, the ideal amount of time to have passed before historians are generally allowed to get away with merde involving the government's role in events, the possibility of a more social-oriented history, and the likelihood of the approved national/founding myths being invariably political and history from the top.

So you get the idea of the questions and key issues that had formed the theme and impetus behind the talk.

And then one of the ACJC students spoke up. Bright-sounding, articulate, tiringly preppy, desperate to get the words out and beat the time limit. The question (paraphrased): "Do you find it disturbing that our Singaporean history is not objective and written with an agenda?"

The room went still. Not with awe, but with a collective "well, duh."

I lie. It wasn't all "well, duh." There was also "Where'd the students come from?" "zzzz - Huh?" "Do you think there are chocolate eclairs on the food table outside?"

Lysa Hong, who is first and foremost, a lady, handled the question with the grace and flair that has marked her tutorial classroom. And because she is also a teacher, she treated the questioner with tolerance and the question with her trademark velvet handling designed to encourage rather than deflate young egos.

No, she said, it didn't disturb her at all.

And the rest of the room echoed the answer silently before we heard it.

Because history isn't objective. It never is. Never was. Objective is a little lie that we tell, the pot of gold that we describe when we want you to chase your rainbow'd dreams.

And I doubted the student had known it. I also knew that the answer had been fair and patient, in recognition of the questioner's youth and idealism, and evident interest that Prof Hong did not want to quash.

And I know that another person that evening who had asked a similarly out-of-place question had been treated less gently, because he was older and thus judged to have known more and better - known more about the subject and the discussion at hand, known better than to ask the question here and now .

And then I realised that in the knowing of these things, I'd lost a little more of a person I had once been.

I think I've gained more much than I had ever lost. Idealism is a wonderful thing, but there are times when I think that idealism is ultimately about forcing your own utopia on a world that has other plans. And the thing about losing your idealism is that in doing so, you actually begin to start achieving your dreams.

And more than that, there comes a time in life, where idealism is no longer forgiven nor cherished, nor looked on fondly by others, nor protected. We look indulgently on idealism in our young, because they are seen as children. We are less indulgent of blind idealism in our peers.

Losing your idealism isn't about losing your hopes and dreams and beliefs and desires. It isn't about giving up making the world a better place, or about "caving in". It isn't about keeping silent in the face of Evil or Evil's more ubiquitous cousin, Screw-up.

It's about realising that there isn't one answer to everything, that disagreements can flare between people who agree on the goals but not the paths. It's about seeing the world in more than a binary, about giving up the Other for others, and about multi-isms. It's about that perfectly delightful moment when the factors and relationships and considerations and issues that drive and complicate and decide and inspire our world lie revealed to you in their rainbow glories.

And it's about that moment when what I have written are no longer just revelations to you, but echoed in your blood when you read it. When you realised that you knew the answer before you read it.

Fun, isn't it? Fuck being 17, there are things that are even better than being young.

----------------------------------------------

[ As an addition to the question of history's objectivity, and by natural extension, the objectivity of MSM that has come under fire in recent months, I give you a quote from Good Night and Good Luck, the Oscar nominated film about Ed Morrow, the journalist who went against Senator Joe McCarthy in an attempt to battle censorship and freedom:

"I would argue that everyone censors. Including you."

Think on it ]

Read more!

Blogging Ethics

Since I am technically NUS staff, does this mean that I shouldn't post critically about my employer?

Laundry list of things I want to bitch about: not paying the cool admin staff enough (not me, in case you were wondering), dumbass overpaid NUS business school adds, ugly-ass University block, fucktard arrivista-mentality graduate society, and no proper on campus postgraduate housing.

Read more!

Sometimes you just need a list

Sometimes you think, "Dang, I wish I thought of doing that first."

In the course of writing papers and articles, and trying to identify a question in the material that you've collected, sometimes you forget how lovely, elegant, and utterly useful a simple list can be.

Here's one on quotes about the opposition from the PAP this past election.

Read more!

The Straits Times is a whore - so what?

What about the Straits Times?

Over the last few days, there's been a lot of bitching about unfair coverage of the elections. The venerable old dame of the Singapore news scene has been demonised as a painted hussy, a shameless whore sent to walk the streets for the government. Other people complain about the reporters: they're gutless government shills, who have no integrity or worse, whine and say it's just a job.

My reaction is... well, I don't have one, really. Because... nothing new there.

A newspaper has the duty to be objective? Can you hear the historians sniggering off their collective wrinkled ancient asses at you? A newspaper may have the duty to be objective. Whether it actually is objective is something else. As any academic worth their tenureship will tell you - objectivity is something we sell to the JC students and freshmen. It's a little lie we tell. The truth is - no one's objective. If you truly wanted to be objective, you'd have describe the scene right down to shoelaces, underwear brand, and every last pearl of wisdom dripping from every last candidate's mouth.

(As an aside, if anyone knows how to erase the mental image of pearls dripping from George Yeo's mouth, please tell me how. )

What happens in the newspaper is that it's story telling on the run - they need to tell you the story. So stuff gets edited. And the end result - isn't objective, and how balanced it is depends on who's watching. And the first objective of newspapers isn't to rock the world, it's to tell the story, as accurately as possible.

But we could go back and forth all day on how objective the Straits Times is (my answer, nope, not at all), and we'd never reach a conclusion. (Rather like every last bloody GP paper I ever had to write)

I think the greater question is this: Why is the Straits Times so determinedly middle-of-road, and conservative? If the answer is because it's the mouthpiece of the government - why then, we elected the Straits Times the same time we elected the government. Change the government, change the Straits Times.

But I think that part of the problem is that there is no body else. Take a look at the US - you have Fox News (Republican) versus New York Times (Democratic, baby-killer, gay down to the janitor). While admittedly a flawed comparison, since it's TV versus print, it still goes to show the diversity of viewpoints possible within MSM. And because there's more than one paper, it's possible for a newspaper to push one side of the issue more than the other side - or to put it in more diplomatic terms - take a stand.

And as for the readers - well, if you don't like the NYTimes, just walk two steps over and pick up the NYPost. Or skip the whole thing and pick up the latest on alien abductions in Wyoming. See? You have a choice. Just pick the newspaper that tells the version of the news you like better.

But in Singapore - we're unique, just like everyone else! - if you're an English-language reader (and far too many of us with Chinese/Malay AO-levels are English readers only), there's no getting around the Straits Times. Don't tell me about "alternative" viewpoints of the "braver" newspapers like Today - Today's news is written with fact-checking as an option. It's the Straits Times or nada. At least until someone manages to break into the monopoly, and for a history of such attempts and related journalism in Singapore, check out Dr. Cherian George's blog.

So the Straits Times has to be all things to all people. And if you've ever had a conversation with your friends in the Econs/Engineering department - well - you might find that they like the ST. The ST is "just right". And that should tell you something about people - they don't like their world shaken up - they don't like to be disturbed. They like something that fits in with their worldview - the world as they know it.

(And before you get feeling all happy and snobby - so do you. It's just that your world view is different from theirs.)

In short, people don't want to hear man bites dog. They want to hear dog bites man. They don't want news, they want olds.

And because of that, the Straits Times is doing its job just fine.

So lay off the old lady. She's in bed with the government and gets fucked by them every single day. And if you've looked at the headshots of the PAP recently, you'll realise that it's punishment enough.

Read more!

My Election Results Post

Potong Pasir and Hougang just told PAP to take their lifts and shaft 'em.

It can only go downhill from now. I'm taking my fun when I can.

Read more!

WP Serangoon Rally: Sylvia has no last name now

Serangoon Rally was interesting. I got there in time for Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang, which is far more impressive than it sounds since the jam around the Stadium area started in...

.. Clementi. Seriously. The PIE was jammed from there - a moving jam, but jam nonetheless.

When we finally got there, the place was filled with people - less than the Hougang rally, but it could be because the place was larger, so the impact was somewhat less. But there were still people pressing in to listen, climbing on top of cars, of fences.

Sylvia was considereably more impressive than she was on Sunday - kept the message short, and sweet. She hammered home a few points that mainly appealed to the crowd's sense of being ignored by the PAP. A few that stood out, and were emphasised by Low:

1. The WP has run a clean campaign, with no insults. Unlike *cough*youknowwho*cough*

2. The WP does not, and never has, intended to take over the government. They want to be the Opposition, not just an opposition party. Which brings us to point three...

3. The point of having an opposition is to make the government work for the country. She brought up the 2001 elections versus the 1991 elections. During the first in 1991, the govt received a narrow margin of victory, and the subsequent years saw pork barrels and goodies galore. After the 2001 elections where the govt won by a large margin, the electorate got.. nada.

The last point was the one that I considered interesting. Many people that were fence sitters sometimes confessed that they were fence sitters because they didn't see the need for an opposition for the sake of opposition. They felt that the opposition should talk about more bread and butter issues, and couldn't make the mental connection between having an opposition party and the impact on their lives.

And that's why I found Sylvia's point a good one. The idea of having an opposition is an intellectual one, and some people can't wrap their minds around that idea. Others are pragmatic - they think that having an opposition is some liberal arts western intellectual academic masturbation, that has little actual practical purpose. Sylvia's example (and naturally, a teacher would think of this!) managed to link the theory and the practice of having an opposition. She un-intellectualised it, and showed how an abstract idea had actual bread-and-butter issues.

The WP rally ended with Sylvia and Low leading the crowd in a recitation of the pledge, which was rather interesting since it drove home that being an opposition member didn't make you un-patriotic, or un-Singaporean.

Well, that's the last rally for another 5 years. But going to them has been interesting in many ways, partly because you get to learn a lot more about Singapore than you normally would. And you get to see Singaporeans that you never really see. As a member of the intellectual elite, going to the rallies is one of the times that I get to interact, however superficially, with the species known as the Heartlander.

And there's the thing that has always struck me about these rallies. They defy everything that I've ever been told about these heartlander Singaporeans, or indeed, Singaporeans in general. Politically apathetic? The numbers say something else. Anti-social to strangers? As Yawningbread pointed out, this is one of the few times where Singaporeans will talk and discuss with complete strangers. (The other time it happened, as I recall, was the NKF period) Un-co-operative? The people quietly translating for strangers say otherwise. Pushy and rude? The entire crowd was Singapore on its best behaviour, acting together gotong royong style, determind not to give the police any reason to intervene.

And they were here to listen. All over, you could hear the sound, or lack of sound, that people make when they're actually.. listening.

The PAP tried to claim that people were attracted to the opposition rallies because they wanted to see the show. It may have had to do something to do with this compared to this. But it is true that high turnout doesn't translate into voter inclinations.

But did Singaporeans come down see show only? Well, of course we're there to see show. If we didn't come down to just see the show, it would suggest that this was somehow important to us.

And that just isn't Singaporean, now is it?

Read more!

Doggie voter

Dear Herbie,

I don't know if anyone' s told you, but there's an election on. Now, I'm sure that it's just something that humans do, like go to school, drive tin cans and pee in private. However, this one involves you.

I'm sure you don't want to get involved. After all, why should you care? It's about stuff that other people do, like economic stability and Gomezgate and cost of living and upgrading. You're not a politician, a professional or an expert on finance, or economics. Surely they know better? They're paid more than your owner, they must know. Why should you know? It's complicated.

Because it's about you, Herbie. It really is.

One of the big issues right now is that the party in charge is the PAP, and they're the only party in charge. Some of the humans say that it's not right, and that there should be an opposition party that can act as a check on the government's power. The opposition is needed so that they can ask questions if they think that the ruling party is doing something silly or wrong.

There's something else that opposition parties do - they take up issues that the ruling party doesn't think are very important. Part of the reason they do that is because they believe that this means there are people who aren't being paid attention to by the ruling party, and so might be willing to vote for the opposition party if the opposition takes up their worries. That's why opposition is good for minority groups and causes.

That would be you, Herbie.

You're a minority, Herbie, you and your owner. There aren't that many dog owners in Singapore. So for some people, you are inconvenient. They don't want you to be around, or take up space. This means that they don't want you to have that dog run that you love so much, or be able to walk past a playground, or even live next to them. You're... messy. And difficult to deal with, because it's not what people are used to. It's much easier to just not deal with you.

They'd rather you didn't exist.

You know that. You've seen what happens to your animal friends, because the law and the majority of people - Chinese, Malays, Indians - don't care about them.

There was that mongrel puppy that you loved to play with, what happened to him? He was saved and brought home by the little girl next door. But because he was a mutt, he was about 2kilos too heavy by HDB regulations, and when the spiteful neighbours next door reported him, the family was told to either give up the dog, or give up the flat. He went to the SPCA, and never came out alive.

The terrier who used to play with all the kids in the neighbourhood ran out of the house one day. He was knocked down in front of his owner's little boy's eyes. The lorry stopped, but the driver only wanted to check his vehicle for blood. "Call the police? Hah, go ahead - SURE they come - it's just a stupid dog you weirdo." The police, of course, did not come.

The fluffball Maltese who died at a grooming accident, and the tearful owner was offered $80 compensation. The kittens that were found strangled all over a HDB estate, and the killer jailed for a mere 6 months.

Remember 2003, and the SARS scare? The government decided that in the name of assuring investors that Singapore was safe, they had to assure them that it was hygienic and clean. So Vivian Balakrishnan, then Minister of State for National Development, took charge and culled the stray cats. In the hundreds.

Because they might have spread the SARS virus, they claimed. Then they found it didn't.

Didn't matter. Stray cats were a hygienic nuisance, they said. And they continued.

It didn't matter that the Cat Welfare charity had invested tens of thousands into sterilising the stray cats, because the AVA had agreed to leave those alone.

It didn't matter that there was a retired old grandmother crying her eyes out when she realised that the cats she loved never came home.

It didn't matter that an old man who paid half his pension to feed the strays (and neutered them, and cleaned up after them so they wouldn't be a nuisance), was left on a park bench, one more anchor in his world gone.

It didn't matter that angry hawkers disagreed with cats being a nuisance at food places. They kept the rats away, they insisted, and the regulars liked having them around.

It didn't matter.

The cats were... troublesome. An uncontrollable factor. And besides, the majority of Singaporeans didn't like them, it was claimed. Perhaps it was true, Singaporeans wrote in to endorse the killing of the cats, since it was self-evident that having cats within 100m of a playground gave your kid asthma.

Dr Balakrishnan later declared that the cats didn't seem to have SARS, and that it probably wouldn't pass to humans. But the killings would continue:

"'Culling is a last resort,' he added. 'If we didn't have people abandoningpets,
if pets were properly sterilised, properly cared for, we'd have no problems with
strays." (Straits Times, May 31, 2003)

Then why were sterilised cats killed?

If so many stray cats are the problem, why not make it easier for people to adopt cats?
Dr Teo Ho Pin, then MP, apparently agreed with this solution:

Dr Teo suggested this solution: 'Animal lovers should go out and adoptstrays,
take them home, care for them and organise a programme to take them inas pets,'
he said. (ST, May 25, 2003 Sunday)

Well, that's a funny thing, Dr Teo, they already do. Of course, HDB people aren't allowed to legally adopt cats, and they form 80% of the population, so it's a touch difficult. And of course, your party members made it that even more difficult, when they turned down two separate appeals by the Cat Welfare Society to allow cats in HDB. This was around 10 months earlier. And your colleague, Dr Balakrishnan, who was complaining about the strays, help to turn them down. This is part of what he said:

Cats, he said, are not allowed as pets in HDB homes because of their penchantfor
screeching while in heat.He went on to provide this veterinary tidbit: 'Cats
caterwaul in post-coital agony, not post-coital ecstasy.' (Straits Times, July 9,
2002 Tuesday)

So Cat Welfare's attempt to solve the stray situation was foiled, by a reason that was somewhat bizarre, since sterilised cats don't screech. And 10 months later, you have a cat problem. So you kill the cats.

I don't know if Dr Balakrishnan ever apologised for his role in the killings. Maybe he did. Maybe not. Cats aren't important.

But you see, Herbie, that's what you get when you have a strong dominant party. They all think the same way. There is no one that can say, Stop, this is wrong. Because you don't question a fellow party member. That's not what a united party should do.

That's what an opposition party should do. To question the actions of the ruling party, and make sure that everyone is taken care of and listened to. To give minorities, such as yourself, a voice.

So that's why having an opposition is important for you. But either way, the election concerns you, Herbie. Because it's about you and your kind and your owners: it's about every dog and cat that died because someone just didn't like them, it's about every animal abuser that went unpunished because kittens just weren't important enough, it's about every single time someone called out "stay away from the big dog before he give you a disease or bite you." It's about your life.

And if the cat culling incident is anything to think about, it's not just your life, it's your right to live.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting that an opposition party will be any better to animals than a one-party system. However, considering the current situation, I can't imagine it will get much worse. And if animal welfare is what you're interested in, then the elections are important for you. Because it's about choosing people that will come to affect your life, or even your right to live.

Think I'm crazy to link animals and humans? Go on. I don't care.

If [man] is not to stifle human feelings, he must practice kindness
toward animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings
with men. We can judge the heart of man by his treatment of animals. - Immanuel
Kant

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the
way its animals are treated”. - Mahatma Gandhi

Read more!

My First PAP Rally at Boat Quay

Attended PAP rally at Raffles Place today. It was just at Boat Quay, on the promenade, backdrop of the Fullerton.

Cheryl Fox attended. I wonder if she ever attended the WP ones? Does CNA go to WP rallies at all? (Lazy to check.)

Am vaguely wondering, did they have to put the ministerial podium with the seated PAP pple in the sun, on the promenade, because there's some kind of electoral rule about holding rallies on private property? (e.g. under the UOB canopy, on its plaza.)

Because that's the only reason I can think of that would explain why the poor PAP ministers had to sit under the sun for 2 hours at noon. Seriously, I felt sorry for them. Sitting out there in the sun - to what purpose? To get some sort of crowd at a PAP rally for once, by attracting the RP office people? Or to not too subtly hold a rally celebrating the PAP's past achievements, in the business district, surrounded by the most tangible results of past acumen - gigantic metaphorical phalluses?

I'd blog more, but seriously, I cannot be bothered. What I would like to say is probably defamatory, or will be ruled defamatory. Or maybe that's defamatory. Ok, I'll say it - white makes you look like RI boys.

Out of curiousity, has there ever been a politician of First World Country that whined about the opposition party making his extremely well-paid job difficult, by forcing him/her/it to win elections? Which did not occur today. I'm just wondering.

Tag: Singaporeelections
(Technorati hates me. I refuse to take it personally.)

Read more!

Letters from a Hougang Rally

Just got back from the Hougang rally by Worker's Party.

A few quick letters:

Dear Sylvia Lim:

I want to love you. Really. But you need to get a good speechwriter, stat. Ask me. I work for internship pay (ie. half nothing, and coffee).

XOXO
Mezzo

-------------------------------------
Dear Low Thia Khiang:

I'd say that I love you, but I think your heart's in Hougang. That chemistry you have with it - well, far be it from me to spoil such a beautiful relationship. For the sake of the nation, I'll step out.

Heartbroken Martyrly yours,
Mezzo

-------------------------------------
Dear 30,000 plus rally attendees:

Dun bruff. I know you're all illegal immigrants from uncontested GRCs, who've snuck into Hougang for because you were in search of a better life, one with democracy, freedom of speech, and rights of the individual. Did you hide in a cargoload of organic vegetables from Tuas?

Mezzo

-------------------------------------
Dear Heartlander Man:

Thanks for happily translating the Teochew speech for me. I realise that you weren't the only one who did so, since I spotted more than one person helpfully translating the various speeches into Chinese/English for strangers in the crowd. It helped greatly, although I suspect that if I had guessed "Down with PAP", I would have been right.

Monolingually yours,
Mezzo

------------------------------------
Dear AhBeng:

I'm sorry I rolled my eyes at your Von Dutch shirt that your girlfriend bought you. You were beng, but you were nice and sweet and offered to help me across the ditch after I'd crawled under the barricade to get closer to the action. You deserve better, and I hope you enjoyed yourself that night.

Apologetic,
Mezzo

-----------------------------------

Nice turn out tonight. Crowd wasn't enthusiastic, but what Singaporeans ever are? They turned up quietly nonetheless. The spirit was co-operative, with people offering to help complete strangers, and heartlanders who by turning up, displayed that they were most definitely not politically apathetic - in short, everything Singaporeans are accused of being.

Sometimes I forget that as a blogger, I'm the noisy one. Sometimes change starts from the bottem, from the voiceless.

But not always the powerless.


(oh, and some political stuff went down. Healthcare, upgrading, blahblah. Hey, I said the other people were politically un-apathetic. )

Read more!