Vox Leo - A Singaporean Voice

Rigor Mortis

2007-05-15T11:41:00.000-04:00

News of my demise has been greatly exaggerated. I've just blogged elsewhere under a different name. I might be moving this blog to a new site, so please stay tuned. I'm coming back to Singapore soon, so I'll be way more in touch with what is going on. Of course I might be off to Law School soon, so who knows. But I'm not dead. Just sleeping like a pig.

Catch 22

2006-08-30T13:14:00.000-04:00

There's been alot on the PM's speech. Let's just say his speechwriters need to be fired. Then again if he wrote his own speech, then he needs to get speechwriters. I'm firm believer in having good speechwriters, and American-style lying and spin doctoring. So don't vote for me. I'll spin you good.

I've been thinking alot about Singapore. Partly due to the fact that I am coming home for good this December, partly because I am considering being a civil servant, or in our case a Mandarin. There's a key difference between the two. Our bureaucrats are obviously not inclined to think of themselves as civil SERVANTS, so a better, and oft used term, is Mandarin. Afterall they dispense wisdom from up high.

I've also been thinking alot about Turkey and Eygpt. There, like here, the state is all pervasive. It's everywhere. Like us, Turks and Eygptians also know that they can't do without the state. In all honesty, our institutions have been designed to be all pervasive. Even if we somehow elected a new government into power, it's only a matter of time before they become all pervasive. If they roll it back (which party would do that) then our community would be suffering from withdrawal syndrome. We are entirely dependent on the state for most everything. Despite our urge to be free of it, let's be honest and admit we actually like some things about our all pervasive state. We like the efficiency and convenience.

It's reflected in our relationship with our parents. As we grow older we love to be more independent, but the truth is we like the convenience of living with our parents. Sure we can't bring skanky women home for one night stands, and we cannot be sure the tea we bought won't be stolen by someone else in the household, but we like that our clothes are washed, food is cooked and we're reminded to pay our bills. I used to be like that, my sis is like that. Having lived on my own for 5 and 1/2 years now, I actually value my freedom. I still miss homecooked meals (not ruined by me) and not having to do laundry (more time for bumming around), but I also like the fact that I know my bottle of OJ won't disappear and I can bring home skanky women i picked up at bars (only in my fantasy world).

That's what my relationship with Singapore is like. We want more freedom, but we like living with our parents. The thing is there will come a time when we must leave home. We must create our own spaces, our own families. So while we like the all-pervasive efficiency and convenience, we also would like to pioneer our won space. We'd like to be parents ourselves.

The question is can we give up the convenience and efficiency of our insitutions? A little bit of instability for a little bit of freedom? Life is full of trade offs. What are we willing to trade?

The hustings

2006-01-25T15:18:00.000-05:00

So election fever is beginning to grip our tiny little island. Everyone is gearing up for that big day where half the country doesn't vote and takes a nice holiday (although lately they've been scheduling it for saturday... the bastards!) and the other half pretty much gets to decide less than 50% of the seats in the next Parliament.

It is always nice to see that everyone is getting excited over not much.

Also alot of people have gone on hiatus. In fact most of us are not even blogging. Our favourite #1 blogger, Ms Molly Meek is on a holiday. A nice long holiday, I hope, to rest her nerves before Election Fever comes along and makes her sick all over again.

What do I have to say? I don't agree with the PAP or the WP for that matter. I think the PAP has grown too accustomed to unchallenged authority and forgets that it is a representative party. The WP, on the other hand, just doesn't appeal to me. They've got too many socialistic policies in there for me to go along with it. I can be a little bit of a cold hearted economic Liberal. I do agree on social safety nets, but I think the WP is aiming for safety nets that are far too high for my liking.

That's all I have to say on this matter. Being so far away also insulates me from the daily madness. I was hoping to count on other people to keep me updated but everyone is pretty much busy or talking about the gay issue (i won't go there).

Singapore Spirit

2005-12-18T02:19:00.000-05:00

Xeno Boy asks a good question.

This is a complex cultural question. During my undergraduate days I was an active member of a fraternity. We went through some pretty rough times during my sophomore year (2nd yr). We had bad leadership from the officer corp. This put us sophomores in a crisis mode. All junior year (3rd yr) we worked to realign ourselves. We had to stop coasting and barely surviving. We needed to find something to rally around, an idea to live for. Working with the alumni and our very good alumni advisor by senior year we had unveiled the Leadership Initiative. With it came our belief in who we were, where we saw ourselves going... A year, of course, is not enough time for a cultural revolution, but because of that idea our successors are far more coordinated and have something to rally around.

Related to this is what Singaporean youths rally around. Firstly I'd like to point out that there are subsets within the wider category "youth." Generally anyone under 35 is considered a youth. But it could be constructed as anyone who isn't an adult but older than 14. Still in the process of identiy formation is the best way to put it. There are indeed subsets, from the blog world you can see the divisions already.

You have the safe, prod along types who while privately holding views contrary to the authorities, tow the public line. You have the "celebrity at any price" sort of crowd. You have the "as long as I'm one of beautiful/cool" crowd. You have those who have to worry about bread and butter issues. You have the "sit there and complain" group. You also have the "thinking" group. The "activitst" group. You have the "good deeds and volunteerism" group. The "pursuit of wealth" group. The "rebel without a cause" group. The "i just don't care" crowd. I mean they can and do intersect of course and I'm sure there are more subgroups out there.

It's hard to say what we're all collectively fighting for or what we believe in. Sometimes the reality of our state system forces us to make certain decisions or join certain subsets. What did our parents fight for? They're also broken up in subsets. While the Nantah students were busy defending Chinese culture, my parents were busy being enterpernuers, trying everything from being tailors to HK superstars (i take pride in that fact) to finally hitting it big in property. I don't think my parents cared too much about the Nantah crowd. They were poor, non-university educated folks. My dad has an O level certificate and my mom has a vocational license. They just kept trying idea after idea.

The national rhetoric may have been that the previous generation fought hard for independence and survival, but that's the whole Epic myth created by every nation. The political elites (winners and losers) may have been in an epic struggle, but everyday folk may have been more worried about getting blown to bit by Indonesian terrorists, shot by Communists or just trying to survive financially. Of course they get swept up into the national creation myth. I'm sure while the Founding Fathers of the US were busy debating rebellion, the everyday farmer was busy tilling the soil and sort of paying attention to what's going on, but not being active. Later on he would have picked sides and fought for either cause.

There has to be a creation of something to fight for. In my opinion all cultural ideas carry hints of politics in them. Politics is a close relative of culture, they work closely together. The state has tried to create a cultural identity without introducing politics into it. But civic conciousness is linked to political partisipation. The politically active tend to be concious of their rights and duties of a citizen. The creation of a civic mind is intertwined with politics, culture, ethics and morals.

So what are we fighting for? As a whole, I don't know. But I know some of us believe that things can be better. That begs the question as to whether we're willing to fight for it.

Follow up on Economics of transportation

2005-12-17T17:43:00.000-05:00

KT Man:

Thank you for your comments, allow me to respond.

I agree that natural monopolies are no different, the only thing going for them is economies of scale, to price out rivals.

I think demand is somewhat elastic depending on which transportation you look at. Remember if transportations costs get too high, even firms will consider letting workers work from home (Boeing does that here in the US).

There is a difference as to only people who use the system pay and every citizen paying. If I drive a car, or work from home, why should i subsidize every other person who travels? If I only use the system once a month, why do I have to pay for every single day. This is the difference between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's nothing to do with your logic, you just assume that costs should be carried by society as a whole, while I think that the users of the goods should pay.

Keeping the cost of living low means that the government must invariably subsidise a whole range of products. Should it also subsidise all basic neccesities, electrcity (already subsidised), telephone, and water (subsidised)? You could also argue for the case of subsidised internet connection, if you consider that a neccesity in Singaporean life. Education is already heavily subsidised all the way to the tertiary level. The money has to come from somewhere. We could shut down a number of programs if you want, but that still will not yield that much money. How much of the military would you like to cut down? Police force? Fire department? Museum? Library? Customs? Immigration? Hospitals (subsidised too)? Embassies? Courts? Prisons? The question is how much can you cut before you compromise other public goods?

Outside of taxation and sale of bonds, I cannot figure out how the government can raise more taxes? The ERP is just a road consumption tax. If they charge trains to use the rail, then it's a rail tax. I mean I cannot think how. Lottery I suppose... That could be it, but that's just another form of income tax on the poor (the richer you are the less you spend proportional to your income of the lottery, barring gamblin addicts, but then how did they get rich in the first place). What other forms of "creative" fund raising does the government have?

As for exempting goods, from a consumption tax could be difficult. Then you'd have to seperate them from the other goods. Two classes of supermarkets? Should we only subsidise cheap brands or all brands? In DC sales tax is 5.75% but liqour tax is higher.This has created a situation where supermarkets do not sell liqour, and the creation of specialised liqour stores. Arguably the supermarkets could sell both, but they do not, it must have to do with creating more complex software to compute two tax rates.

Do not underestimate market power of an oligopoly, especially a cartel (it's basically a monopoly). They could drop rent for the taxi drivers to say $40 and then say that their taxi rates will now start at flagdown of $2.00 and instead of $0.10/km, it could be $0.06/km. For the firm the taxis are a sunk cost. If drivers are unhappy, the supply of new drivers is not scarce. They don't have market power in the labour market either. For potential entrants (individuals not other firms from other industries with huge war chests), this can be a huge barrier.

Shianux:

Thank you for your comments.

For natural monopolies see above. That's the textbook definition. They are definetely manmade since they got to the point of EOS through government intervention.

I agree also that the government should remove itself form the tranportation business and let the chips fall where they may. A light regulatory touch instead of a heavy one.

Again I think it may be possible for a Perfect Competition market to evolve. Information is not perfect, but can be near perfect. You must remove the big firms though. Imagine:

Country A has a population of 100. Monthly income is $50 There are currently 5 taxis in operation. Demand for taxis places the price at $1/km. Taxi drivers sort of sense they can charge you about $1, they're not stupid (ok a few may be). So they start making economic profits of $10/month. This encourages other guys to get a taxi. So 10 new taxis join. Now we're at 15 taxis. This shifts the market supply curve, more supply! Yay! So now consumers are no longer willing to pat $1/km. The new drivers might charge $0.80/km (which is the new marker equilibrium). Quickly the old drivers follow or get priced out. Now the individual "firm" is making an economic loss of $2/month. Some taxi drivers will leave the business. Eventually economic profits are zero. This does not mean that people are not making a living. It's just that their opportunity costs match their profits.

This is an exaggeration, and you could well be right. It may be more difficult to get rates out. But if there were no taxi companies, each taxi driver would fight for your fare. They could use a meter or just tell you flat out. "How much to Orchard from Changi? $15? Too expensive. $10? Cannot? Ok never mind then. I'll just grab the cab behind." DC actually operates on that kind of system. They use zonal payments, which never works, the drivers try to cheat you. But if you're not willing to pay, then you just go to the next one that is offering a price you want. The more expensive driver will realise that he's getting priced out by his other rivals. Similarly drivers also cannot be had by consumers. If they know with accounting costs and everything the ride to Orchard from Changi is $8, they won't go lower than that, and if they know there are 3 other guys waiting who are willing to pay about $15 for the trip, they just won't take you for $10. Invisible hand of the market.

The only other way is for the government to take the trouble and draw a demand and supply curve. Ask stupid questions like at $0.15/km would you take a cab? At $0.20? $2 flag down fee would you take it? $3? And then extrapolate from there. Similarly ask taxi drivers questions. At $0.15/km will you drive? $3 flag down fee? And so on. Tedious, but that's one way, and then let everyone know that the market equilibrium is at $2.50 for flag down and $0.20/km. That's another way i guess. Not so good, but might be better. This is of course top of my head, and I'm not an expert in transport economics.

By the way when I say firms in Pefect Competition with relation to taxis, I mean individual taxi owners. Sorry for that error.

A good discussion gentlemen. I do enjoy such intellectual discussions. Maybe I am too pedantic or too textbook-y, but I belive that theory informs practise and vice versa. These models cannot hold for so long unless there is truth to it. Maybe we woudl have to alter them a little, but I do not believe that their entirely wrong when applied to the real world either.

On transportation

2005-12-17T11:05:00.000-05:00

Kway Teow man has posted his opinions on Singapore's transportation system. I would like to take a closer look at his policy suggestions. While his recommendations are socialistic in nature and really does care for the underprivileged in our society, there are economic drawbacks.

(1) Monopolies are allocatively and productively inefficient.

He clearly understood that concept, and thought that nationalisation is the answer. He rightly point out that the burden will fall on taxpayers, but not just initially. It will continue to be a burden on tax payers. His goal of nationalisation is to force the monopoly to produce where price = Marginal Cost, and quantity is at minimum average total cost. That is not possible. At P=MC, demand at that price is way higher. And at min. ATC (the productively efficient point), the price is higher than P=MC price (the allocatively efficient point).

Let's say we don't care about productive efficiency, since it focuses more on the firm than consumers (forcing a monopoly to operate at that point also creates a loss). Let's say we look allocative efficiency where consumers. This is where opportunity cost to produce the marginal unit equals to the cost consumers are willing to pay for that unit. If the monopoly is forced to produce at P=MC. This means that the monopoly is going to operate at a loss. Total revenue < Total cost. This is where the tax payers come in again. Tax payers have to pay for the bus service whether they take it or not. That's hardly as fair as the current system. Now everyone, not just public transport users, have to pay for the system.

Ok. So we produce at higher quantities and lower prices at either of the two points, but let's say people cannot stomach paying for public transport through taxes. So we try to produce where the firm breaks even, or where marginal revenue = marginal cost, then the price will be far lowers than its allocatively efficient point, but the quantity will continue to be at the level before the nationalisation. That's your break even point. Doesn't solve anything because at that Price, demand is more than the quantity supplied. So there's a shortage. And a black market may open up to meet the demand.

There is almost no good way to regulate a monopoly. At least not from the economic stand point. The only thing I can think of is a profits tax. Which adds to nothing, but it does take away incentive to invest in the future, but for transport monopolies in Singapore, it's ok, since the government invests in improvements. The firm can also be forced to update equipment by law or regulation, as it does with taxis.

(2) Not raising or reducing consumption tax

That sounds like a good idea. Consumption taxes usually affect the poor more than the rich since the cost of fixed spending increases proportionally higher in poor household, than in rich households.

Let's say that society accepts government run, subsidised transportation, through taxation. If consumption tax is not moved, we have to pay for it somehow. A rise in income tax is another way to do it. Corporate taxes should not be raised simply because this would discourage businesses in an already weak economy. So income tax it is. This means raising the income tax. A rise in income tax means that consumption goes down. This is because there is less money to spend now that it is being taxed. Along with the multiplier effect, consumption and investment could go down. This affects the overall GDP. Y= C + I + G + NX. Y = economy, C = consumption, I = investment, G = government spending, NX = net exports.

Let's say the government decides not to raise taxes, but sell bonds to raise money. Unlike US t-bills and t-notes, Singapore's government bonds are not as enticing as US government bonds. Which means we can only sell so much. There are a few problems with that. Assume that all our bonds are snapped up. This could lead to a "crowding out" effect. Where private firms cannot raise capital to invest, since a large sum of the private money is going to the government. It also means a rise in capital inflow, currently Singapore has a capital account deficit, of $22 million. I suspect maintaining a bus system would require another 5 to 6 million at least. So this means that our capital account deficit will be reduced.

Before you go cheering at a reduction in deficit, it also means that our current account balance surplus will be reduced by that much. It means we export less or import more. If that doesn't happen then it means that our foreign exchange assests is set to fall even more. Which means drawing from our reserves.

(3) Individual licences for taxis

I agree with you. I would argue going a step further. Abolish cab companies. This would create a near perfect competition market. It would have a large number of buyers and sellers, homogenuous product (travel in a taxi is more or less homogenous), perfect information (no advertising), and negligible barriers to entry (a driving license and a license to operate a taxi and cost of taxi). This produces both allocative and productive efficiencies. Too wonderful. The only problem is no economic profits in the long run (there might still be accounting profits) for the taxi drivers. As long as the requirement to obtain a taxi is kept to the minimum and we hand out as many licenses as demanded, the market would regulate itself. This could mean alot more taxis or a lot less taxis on the road, but it is a good model.

The problem with a dual structure with a few large firms and many small ones (individual owners) is that the big firms will lower prices to the point that the small firms are priced out (economies of scale let them do that), which benefits the consumer in the short run. The long run is that once all these small firms are no longer a threat to the large firms, prices return to their high levels. Worst if the taxi companies are in collusion. Nothing like some small fish to make the big ones work together to protect their interests.

Another senario could be one of price leadership. The biggest firm basically becomes a price leader, and everyone follows. This is usually because of uncertainty, which is what many small firms could cause to the market. In then end, they all agree that one firm set prices and the rest follow. It'll help the taxi drivers but not us the consumers.

In the oligopoly model, regulation could get somewhat complicated. The regulator could make it so that barriers to entry are too high for potential entrants. I mean the regulator might not be colluding with the oligopolies, but it could ask for better safety standards, safe driving records, low prices to help consumers, annual barrage of inspections, license renewal every year, new car every 10 years, only certain types of cars to be used and so on. It's not to help the established firms, but to have some safety and to help the consumer.

Yes KT man, this is my analysis of your proposals. I would commend you for making them, but there are some areas you failed to analyze when you made those proposals. I know my analysis is economically based and it reveals sort of my biases. For those not in the know, I am a Liberal in the traditional sense. Free market, limited government intervention in the market, and all that good stuff.

There is no good way to counter monopoly power in my opinion, regulation can only go so far. A Profit tax is my answer. That works best in my opinion. That may bug the shareholders, but if they're not happy, they can sell the shares.

Keeping consumption tax low is good, in my opinion. That does mean the the government has to raise revenue elsewhere. If your proposal to nationalise all transportation is to take place, we'll have to pay somehow. There are pitfalls to other forms of revenue collection.

Individual licences all around. Totally abolish cab companies. In fact regulate so that none may form. A perfect competition market? That would be my dream come true.

That's it. I hope you don't take this as me knocking you, just looking at your proposals and dissecting them. Helps us both understand the situation better.

Related links: Molly Meek

Reason why I wish to come back

2005-12-14T21:46:00.000-05:00

Plutarch was once asked why he didn't join everyone else and move; you know follow a brain drain and make big bucks. His reply was "lest my small city should become even smaller."

My good friend from pre-primary recently got a nice programming job in Australia. He's been studying there for 5 years now. I'm gald for him. I asked him if he was ever coming home, he said maybe, but not soon. He wants to see more of the world before he returned home.

My girlfriend wants to move to China to work. She doesn't like countries where she's a minority and she's opposed to Taiwan, and I to Hong Kong, so China sounds like the only option. Her rationale is that China is more fun than Singapore.

Everywhere I turn those closest to me are leaving the country in search of a better life, be it higher pay or a crazier night scene. I mean jobs in the US pay more than jobs in Singapore, even after tax. And there are a lot more jobs for someone with my specialisation in the US.

Yet somehow I feel like I should come home. Maybe I'm old fashioned and believe in nationalism. Maybe I'm just loyal like that. Maybe I feel the need to fulfill my filial duty to my parents. Maybe I just like Singaporean food. I'm not too sure.

I feel like leaving is quitting while the going gets tough. You know, you enjoy the good times, and then you leave the minute trouble's on the horizon. A fair weathered friend. I feel like I have to help it out despite its flaws. I'm a skeptic not a cynic. I know there are deep problems with the place I regard as home, but I also know that given time and effort it can be improved.

Sure the provincial capitals of the Roman world are all nice and shiny, but I like my little Chaeronea.

The Meritocratic Elite

2005-12-14T14:07:00.000-05:00

Kway Teow Man makes an interesting case about Singapore's meritocratic education system. Molly Meek also has a few things to say about our vaunted education system.

So I guess now it's my turn to weigh in and give my two cents worth. Don't blame me for being slow. ST now costs money to read online, and I'm a poor grad student. Where am I supposed to find the money?

I do think that the resources a school has plays a certain role in the nurturing of a mind. Imagine a school library with really good books for you to do reserach with and one that maybe has 10 shelves of books from the 1980s and if you're lucky a few from the 1990s. Or where a school that has 1 computer lab has 20 outdated Pentium 2 computers versus a school with 2 computer labs with 35 up-to-date Pentium 4 computers each. While it still requires good teachers and motivated students, a motivated student in a poorer school might find some restrictions due to facilities.

Another issue might be teacher quality. While both "independent," "autonomous," or "government" schools tend to draw their teachers from the same pool (NIE graduates and a few foreign talents), "independent" schools have a much more relaxed hiring proceedure, while "government" schools have to go through a rather red-taped procedure to obtain a teacher. Furthermore, it is my belief that "independent" school teachers may have less paperwork to deal with since the school is nominally under MOE control and directives, while "government" school teachers are normally swamped with paperwork. Having more time to do lesson plans and teach makes a big difference in quality of teaching. Also many teachers quit their jobs because the immense amount of non-teaching duties makes them lose sight of their original noble goal to teach.

Also the extra money that "independent" schools have, makes it easier to "poach" good teachers away from other schools with better pay and benefits. Again I stress that it also depends on the individual motivation of the students.

As for the permanence of streaming, I agree with KT Man. It can be a very demoralising life journey since the odds are stacked against you. It is easier for a student to slip from the "higher" streams down to the "lower" streams, but not vice versa. Allow me to illustrate:

Timmy is a young boy, smart, intelligent, but rather lazy and not very good at Chinese. He is in a "government" primary school.

He stakes his streaming exam and gets into the EM3 band because his family does not speak mandarin (they're a Hokkien speaking family) and are too poor to afford a tuition teacher (Dad works two jobs, taxi operator and security guard and mom works part-time as a cleaner). His home environment is not suitable for studying since he has 2 other younger siblings.

At P6 he doesn't do so well because of his lack of motivation to study. He ends up in the Normal (Technical) Stream, which means a very very slim chance of getting to do the Ordinary Levels exam. Instead at age 16 he takes the Normal Levels exam and gets an average grade. So Timmy is off to ITE.

At his local ITE, Timmy discovers a flair for computer type jobs, which he never got a chance to do in his secondary school because the labs were always full and computers were too old. He excels and at 19 graduates top of his class. Now he applies to a Polytechnic and gets in. He also has to defer his National Service again.

During his poly years, his lecturers notice that Timmy is in fact very good at computer programming. He completes his Diploma at age 22, at the top 5% of his class. Timmy decides to apply to NTU, but has to do his NS first. At 25 Timmy enter NTU's second year, and graduates with honours at the age of 28 and enters the workforce.

Now compare this to Johnny. His dad is a regional vice president for a big accounting firm and his mom is an assistant general manager of a local shipping firm.

Johnny is equally lazy and unmotivated as Timmy in primary school. He gets tons of tuition and has his own quiet study to do work. He also doesn't need to pitch in and do housework , which Timmy does, when he gets home.

Thanks to rote learning and some exam tips from his tuition teacher, Johnny ends up in the EM2 band. His parents worrying about his future, sends him to Chinese camp during the holidays and doubles his tuition teachers.

As the PSLE Johnny does quite well enough thanks to the tips his tuition teachers gave him. But he fails to make the cut to get into an elite "independent" school. His father being an alumnus of the said school and a big donor, talks to a few friends of his on the school's board and its administration, and they find an extra seat for Johnny in their incoming Express class. With their brand spanking new computer labs and enough equipment for every child, young Johnny discovers that he has a flare for computers. His parents are supportive and send him to computer class outside of school. At the same time they find him tutors for his other weaker subjects.

Johnny doesn't have the right grades on his provisional exams to provisionally get into the JC with a strong computing program. Dad gets a few friends to write letters to that JC and along with some wealthy friends of his, donates a new chandelier for the JC's new performance annex. So Johnny finds himself at the JC for his first three months. Johnny does well for his O levels at age 16. Thanks once again to rote learning and exam taking strategies from his tutors.

At age 18 Johnny exels and does well on his A levels, also with some help from his tutors. He serves NS and leaves at age 21. His father sends him to the US to learn at one of the best schools in the world (which Johnny of course qualified for on his own, he's like Timmy now, very well motivated). And Johnny enters the workforce at age 25 with a BSc summa cum laude.

Three years later Johnny gets a new colleague by the name of Timmy.

I know. This is a long illustration, but i'm trying to show that having wealthy parents can make a difference between children of the same calibre who discover themselves later in life. Of course I exaggerate alot, and I also leave out a lot of things like friends and influences. If Timmy had gotten demoralised along the way he'd not have gone all the way. Or if Johnny sucked so much that all of his daddy's money and friends couldn't save him.

Coming from an upper-middle class family will definetely afford you more opportunity than coming from a poorer family. Coming from a filthy rich family ups the ante even more in your favour. I should know, I come from an upper-middle class family. I always accepted my grades and did the best i could with the grades i had gotten (through my own sheer lack of motivation), even opposing my parents at times. I remember when I was a kid, I did well enough in my PSLE and missed the "Advanced" stream cut off by 3 points (which actually is a good thing for me, my Chinese sucked ass). I went back to my old school, because I felt loyalty and also wanted to stick by my friends. My parents wanted me to go to ACS. They had actually secured a place for me there. Thank goodness I passed up on ~~Slytherin~~ ACS. I remember I told them squarely that I would not budge, and they gave way (I suspect because I appealed to my dad's sense of history; he's an alumnus of my old school).

At my provisional grades, I could have gotten into Catholic Junior College (which was where I wanted to go), but my parents once again secured a place for me at a "better" Junior College. I seriously didn't want to go, but when you're 17 and your parents threaten to cut off your allowance, there's little choice here. So off I went and thankfully I got a good enough O level grade where my parents didn't have to pull those strings to keep me there. Those two years were kind of miserable years.

Is it necessarily fair? No, not really. Is it meritocratic? To an extent. Like KT man says, it does offer children from poorer households the opportunity if they are properly motivated or just naturally talented. It's exactly like the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy at the national level (local level appointments are different). Rich families were the ones who could afford to train their sons, but sometimes poor villages (yes it took a whole village) would sponsor one child and the child would suceed.

The deck is naturally stacked in the favour of the rich, simply because they can get access to better educational resources, be it schools, computers or tuition. I know it's not entirely meritocratic, since I am a beneficiary of "influence" and know of other cases where that happens.

In life there are winners and losers, economics makes that very clear. The goal is to make it so that the gains outweigh the losses , so as to create a net positive effect for society as a whole. Education is Singapore is far more equal than education in the US. The deck is less stacked against the poor in Singapore than it is in the US. Part of it has to do with the fact that alot of tertiary education in the US is private, while in Singapore they are all subsidised. Another has to do with the lack of uniformity in control of education in the US, as opposed to Singapore. So the education, and consequently, wealth gap in the US increases, while Singapore's sort of hovers along or even decreases (I am at this time too lazy to call up data from the last 4 census years to prove that fact).

As for old boys' network, I tend to think that Singapore schools are not as good in that when compared with US schools. The networking here is amazing. Singaporeans are still learning the ropes of networking and alumni relations. In the US, I am constantly reminded of my fraternal links (with my fraternity) and also where i went to school (my alma mater). My current school even posts job listings on its listserv so that both graduated and graduating students can find jobs. The theory is to help us do as well as we can possibly do, and that in turn will serve the school's reputation. It'll also help when it comes around to ask for alumni donations.

So if you're poor and live in Singapore, your one great hope of climbing up the social ladder is to do well in school or marry up (if you know a rich heiress let me know).

Martyn See's Singapore Rebel: A Review

2005-12-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

Today I finally had an opportunity to sit down and watch Martyn See's Singapore Rebel (you can visit his blog here). I find that overall it was a well produced documentary, which provided information that is usually unavailable to the general public, Singaporean or otherwise.

I do have a few things to comment about the short film though (note: this is about the documetary and the way it was done, not neccessarily about the politics). The introduction voice did not seem to fit the documetary well. It sounded too comical, and too whimsical; it did not create the proper mood for the viewer (namely me). Otherwise I think with a more sombre voice the intro is great.

I am especially interested in the use of the family several times throughout the 26 minute film. It is interesting to bring in the family and try to humanise the person that is so often demonised in the Singapore media. However I feel that the family is used too much in the film. It would have been nice to see Dr Chee going around talking to ordinary Singaporeans or on a walkabout (like the ones that WP and NSP do every now and then), to see the political animal at work.

My biggest problem with the film is that it is uncritical of its subject. I would have liked some hard questions answered. Like his tussle with Chiam See Tong for SDP leadership, and why he courts foreign political organisations more than forging local alliances. I would think a fair and balanced documentary would have helped me understand Dr Chee as a politician better. From my view point the documentary is the exactly like the Straits Times' PAP coverage, just slanted towards Dr Chee.

I did enjoy the film immensely, it's just that as a historian and assessing the the film as a primary document, I would have wanted more. Perhaps I am too demanding as a researcher or perhaps I am biased due to my disagreement with Dr Chee's proposals (essentially a more socialist state with welfare, higher taxes and a higher minimum wage), but throughout the film there was a nagging voice in my head.

Overall I would give the short film a 3 out of 5.

High School High

2005-12-08T16:57:00.000-05:00

Inspired by Chem Gen and my old guest article to The Void Deck, I've decided to write a short piece about my impressions of Singapore's blogsphere.

I've come to think of the Blogsphere like a high school. There are all sorts...

The Bitch Queens - We all know there are a few of them out there. They tend to hurl insults at everything and everyone.

The Ah Bengs - You know they like to use profanities and complain about their everyday life and see how much of a "gangster" they can be.

The tech geeks - All they ever talk about are technology matters. That's it.

The pretty darlings - yeah we've got tons of those too. Pictures everywhere and loving the attention. (some of them can be Bitch Queens too)

The ordinaries - you know the kind you always see in a movie or tv show just filling space walking the halls. Yeah... They have their own worries and troubles, but stay out of the spotlight

The info traders - these people post information about everything going on in the school and outside world.

The serious folks - that would be the more serious bloggers. worrying about bigger things and really trying to tweak the system...

I'm sure we can think up of more categories but here's the basic list. Feel free to add more if you like in the comments.

Also as a sidenote, there is a difference between a cycnic and a skeptic. A cynic knows that the system is flawed but gives up thinking that it's the way things are. A skeptic knows that the system is flawed, but believes that it can get better. =)

Drugs and Punishment

2005-12-06T10:46:00.000-05:00

So here's my take on the whole drug issue, or if you like some policy tweaking we can undertake.

(1) The Death Penalty
I agree that the death penalty should be left in place, but it shouldn't be manatory. There should be a whole range of penalties, with the death penalty being saved as the tool of last resort. Sort of like the A Bomb of punishment. Sort of like murder. This gives our judges wider discretion when dealing with specific cases. So we don't have to kill a person who was blackmailed into carrying drugs from one point to another.

(2) Stopping Supply
Outside of just hanging runners, there can be a much better way to curb supply. More policemen, more vigilance and alot more catching would work. Just as Mr Wang puts it.

We could also work with the Thai authorities and try to curb some of flow. And maybe secretly spy on the Burmese, especially since Western intelligence agencies would have a harder time getting in. We could help spy on anti-narcotic missions and perhaps stop the flow of drugs from the Golden Triangle.

Work with our ASEAN neighbours to stem the tide of these drugs. Explain to the producing nations that it is in the interest of the region to eradicate the supply.

Also work with Interpol to stop known drug dealers from coming through. I believe we can do these things without too much hassle

(3) Stopping demand
Education is a big part. Singapre's anti-drug education relies solely on scare tactics. Maybe it could also talk about the economic and social consequences.

As for punishment, I think it should play a secondary role to rehab. Concentrate on rehab and have a system in place whereby former addicts are kept under tabs, so as to prevent them from returning to the drug. Usually integration into a group or community helps stem the return to drugs. Drug users tend to be drawn to drugs because they need to "fill a hole" in their lives. A community of some sort can help them fill some of the gaps. Also attaching a counsellor to the former user, and mandating a check every few months might work to curb use.

Recreational drug users may be a harder problem to deal with. They have the money and the means to travel elsewhere to get their drugs. Again I advocate an ASEAN wide sort of initiative. Work together to address the drug problem.

Companies should be encouraged to carry out random drug tests and an initial drug test before hiring. This practise is already carried out in the US, and I know some recreational drug users quit using drugs because they start working and cannot afford to use these drugs if they want to hold on to their good jobs.

I also suggest much harsher punishments for repeat offenders under the new system. I believe that after all the help and guidance, there is a relapse, the person should stay longer in rehab prison, so as to assure that the user is more throughly cut off from supply and detoxed once again. Put him on a closer inspection regime and psychological help. Alot of addiction is mental. Perhaps the limit should be 5 times before much harsher action should be taken (which I do not know what harsher punishment should be meted out, but death might work as a deterrent for repeats)

In all honesty I believe the death penalty to be a demand deterrent currently (makes us scared to even try), but better policing could lead to a supply fall as well. Working with our neighbours would help reduce supply further. And a more intensive rehab program with much more resources put to post-release integration would help tons.

The Sound of Music

2005-12-04T16:01:00.000-05:00

Pianist Melvyn Tan defers public appearance after National Service furore

So I guess he's decided that stirring up a hornets' nest is not the way to go about. He has sympathies from Molly, MP Man, Mr M and KT man. But not mine...

Melvyn let me give you some advise, from one man to another... You make the bed you sleep in. It was you who chose to skip National Service to further your career. You don't have to give some sob story about causing an uproar. I know all three of my godbrothers returned home to serve NS. Despite the fact that they all lived overseas prior to returning and my godparents reside in HK. They all put aside their careers for one moment to do what all us poor Singaporean men must do. Right now my oldest godbro is at Sembawang Music heading purchasing. My second godbro is at the Ministry of Manpower (whom I like to affecitonately call MOM), and my youngest godbro is in HK getting an MBA.

So Melvyn what do you think? I also know some family friends who fled Singapore to avoid NS. He married a Singaporean despite being an Australian, but he also seldom sets foot in Singapore. He and his parents made a choice. You and your parents made that same choice. Don't play the victim. Real men take real responsibility for their actions.

I myself cannot play the piano, because of an accident sustained in the military, but also because I was more of a bookworm-ish nerd than a music nerd. I cannot say I enjoyed my time in the military, but I did what was my responsibility. At 18 I learnt the key to being a man; I had to make a decision and stuck to it. Just like you. We both deal with the consequences. Don't blame anyone else when people don't like you. You made that decision so many years ago, now you live with the consequences of those decisions.

It really didn't bother me that you skipped NS. I mean you made a choice, and I cannot fault you since you became a good pianist (I personally don't really listen to piano music unless its in an orchestra). What bothers me is this childish stunt and "martyrdom" that you try to paint. I seldom get peeved, but that's BULLSHIT. Deal with it man. You want to play your music for Singapore, then do so. Mozart kept at it even though there was a point people didn't like him. Jerry Lee Lewis played to small audiences, to hostile audiences, simply because he believed in his music.

This evading of responsibility, whether NS or a concert, looks to me like a pattern. A pattern of irresponsibility. My mother raised me to be a responsible person and NS drove that home to me. "Do anything you want, just don't get caught," was the first motto I ever learnt in the Army (2nd day of BMT). My mother would add, "and if you get caught, be a man and face the music."

Get this straight, I don't dislike you for skipping NS, I dislike you because you're such a wussy crybaby. A gentleman never goes back on his word. If you agreed to perform a concert, go ahead and perform it. This is Singapore. What are you afraid of? It's not like people are going to be allowed to picket, and if they pay money to go in and jeer you, at least you made their money, and the ushers will see them out soon.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Melvyn why do you let other people's words hurt you? Why are you acting like a petulant child? Be a man and suck it in. Perform. Show Singapore just how good a musician you are. Music does sooth the savage beast. And if the beast is public opinion then let your music flow to sooth it. Stop being the coward and hiding behind the pillar of "victimhood."
Show me that you're as brave as any young Singaporean man serving his time in NS. Our penalty was having to go through 2 (or 2 1/2 in my case) years of mindless tasks and the possibility of getting hurt, yours should be to play before a hostile audience. We all had to carry our burden and crosses, why are you such a coward? A little sign of trouble and you run.

There are many people who want to hear you play. Be a man and play. Stop being a nancy boy.

On the Death Penalty

2005-11-15T13:49:00.000-05:00

So lately quite a number of folks have talked about the death penalty, so I figured I'd put in my two cents...

I believe that to have or not have the death penalty stems from the belief that the prison system is either for revenge or reform. Therein lies the answer to the death penalty. If it's for revenge (retribution) in the vein of Hammurabi's lax talionis, then the death penalty is the answer. If, however, we believe that humanity is essentially good, then criminals are merely creatures of their circumstance. This would call for long prison sentences and reformation programs.

Also there is a need to take into account the philosophy behind man's nature. The Chinese Legalists believed that men are inherently evil, along with Mencius, so a strict adherence to the law and rather draconic laws will prevent the general populace from slipping into anarchy. Confucius, along with most mainstream Christians, believe that man is inherently good, and must look towards (or back to) a Golden Age where we realise our full potential as humans.

The death penalty is the state's right in the monopolisation of violence. When nation-state's were formed, they assumed that monoply of violence in a social contract with the citizenry. The prison system was for punishment and not reformation, hence the death penalty was an accepted form of punishment. In the Progressive age and Victorian Britain, prisons began to be looked at as tools of reformation and not merely for reformation. It is from this philosophy that stems the opposition to the death penalty.

So where do we go from here? I essentially believe that the criminal justice system is one of revenge as well as reform. Petty thieves and purse snatchers are most likely victims of circumstance and given the proper guidance, can become functioning members of society, as long as we work towards helping them escape their former situation. On the other hand we have murderers and drug traffickers. I honestly believe that murderers should be hung. For no other reason than revenge. Some have pointed out that this affects the murderer's family, but it also affects the murdered's family. I truly belief that taking a life means forfeiting one's own right to life.

Drug traffickers should not be hung. In fact I have argued for the decriminalisation of non-opiad drugs. I believe a long sentence is punishment enough. Similarly for drug users, I believe rehabilitation and a short prison term would help. Perhaps we can adopt a "three strikes" system for drug trafficking to balance the need for punishment and the need for reform. So if you're caught the third time, then it's the gallows for you.

The death penalty is one outcome of the state's monopoly on violence. I believe that state's have a right to it. I also believe that certain crimes are punishable by death. I tend to agree that if you take a life, it is expected that yours is forfeit.

It is a considerable dilemma, that even the Catholic Church deals with. Although the last pope opposed the death penalty, the Church has always upheld a state's right to use the death penalty if it believes in it.

White Elephants...

2005-11-12T02:14:00.000-05:00

So everyone's talking about it... I want one too... White Elephant T-shirt
This is a brilliant idea... Wonderful job girls...

You know if I ever started an NGO or CSO I would love to adopt that white elephant as a logo...
The Society of White Elephants...Yeah... That would be a good one... Also very smart with the whole marketing campaign...

Kudos to you all!

You know this is very interesting... Perhaps even telling of how our society is evolving... When formal routes of dissent (or disagreement, depends on who you talk to) are blocked off (like in Turkey) other forms of dissent appear. Humour tends to be a key area of focus.

The original person who put up the White Elephant actually took a light-hearted approach to a serious problem. That's usually what happens in Turkey too. Since there are little alternate avenues for dissent, the only option is to crack jokes at the situation. You can't really fight the system since it's all-pervasive, but you can learn to cope with it. After all laughter is the best medicine.

It also sure beats just complaining about it. Since you're actually doing something about it. I suppose this is a step up from Rockson who can be humourous at times, but I doubt it's really intellectual humour. It's more the Phua Chu Kang sort of humour that relies on stereotypes (in this case the Ah Beng) and being crude. Generally I prefer Molly Meek, with her rapier wit. Sarcasm still lives!

Humour exists in most societies, and unlike the high minded and sophisticated that some of my fellow bloggers use in their arguments. Simply wit and humour works far better when the political discourse is taken to a wider audience. Sometimes I get really tired of reading highly intellectual pieces by the early Chinese intellectuals, since there's a lot of theory that gets thrown around. I even zone out when my friends start using Foucault and what not... I prefer simple ideas to theory (they usually catch on faster, like this White Elephant).

I wonder if the White Elephant will become the symbol of quiet opposition. Not of opposition for opposition's sake, but a mature disagreement. Perhaps our own "White Elephant" Reformation? I seriously doubt the PAP could ban all images of a White Elephant without some chuckles from the world audience and looking too draconian.

I'm also sure the Republicans here in the US might find it amusing that another Elephant has emerged as a political symbol.

Of course this is all speculation. It could just be a passing fad and will wilt away with time. I for one would love to keep this alive. So I suppose I shall borrow a leaf from our other bloggers and start a "White Elephant" Meme. If you're with me on the idea that there can be a responsible polity in Singapore, which is not merely oppositional, but rational and pragmatic, then join me by putting the white elephant symbol on your blog (with permission from the girls, if you read this).

I leave you with this... From their email to me (sorry for the slowness... writing a 2 page brief for Afghanistan... more work for 2 pages of briefing than a 15 page essay):

A project brought to you by class 415 of Raffles Girls School (Secondary)

HOW IT ALL STARTED

There was a recent incident in which eight white elephants made out of cardboard were placed at the Buangkok MRT station on the North-East Line by some residents to convey their views on how the station is still as yet closed. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Singaporeans, not to mention provoked much interest in the closure of the station, the subsequent acts taken by the government, and expressing the views of Singaporeans in general.

Our class has always taken a strong interest in current affairs and this in particular caught our attention. We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – effective, reasonable ways of airing one’s views – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to a more open, participative society.

OUR BELIEFS

The capacity to which our society can grow is immeasurable
Increased communication between the government and the people is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more participative and united society
Citizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries while expressing their views
Political maturity is essential to the concept of active citizenship

OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT

To push for the concept of a more open, participative society in which people can discuss and air their views in an intellectual and insightful manner, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the law while doing so.
Galvanize the youths of today to rise up from the apathy they are stereotyped with and take an active role in airing their views, as well as participate actively in the molding of our society
To raise funds for Youth Guidance, a charity organization which works with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police in mentoring and reaching out to youths at risk. For more information on the organization, please see the section titled “About Youth Guidance” below.
To ultimately help create a more participative, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship

THE CONTEXT OF THE “WHITE ELEPHANT” IN OUR PROJECT

We would like to remind the public that even though the White Elephant has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of the elephants to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while expressing one’s views and opinions about political issues.

Christianity in Singapore

2005-10-14T13:43:00.000-04:00

Our Christian jihadists

I hope you don't think I am singling out yawning bread for attacks, but I find the arguments to be somewhat unconvincing. They just sound like angry diatribe.

Fristly let's look at Islam and Christianity. They are by their very nature proselytizing religions. They seek to convert. So of course a certain amount of attempting to convert happens. I generally think most Singaporeans from the traditional Christian denominations don't come across as being overly forceful. Also these religions naturally hold that there is a Truth beyond mere truths. There is anunbending, unyielding Truth, that does not change. And in it holds the moral compass of life. This is as far as I understand the two religions.

I want to make a few arguments. If the child is in a Christian school, then don't complain if Christianity is taught. Don't go to that school, there are tonnes of non-Christian schools out there. I do agree that the teacher should be more cautious about preaching her religion to young impressionable minds. As teachers our first and foremost goal is to give a variety of opinions and let young minds make that decision themselves. So there I agree with the author.

Here's my take on the Boys' Brigade and Scouts. The scouts are less religious by nature. It wasn't designed with religion in it. It may have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon values which have Protestanism in it, but then again Capitalism (as Weber argues) also has protestant roots. The Boy's Brigade however has a religious dimension to it, like St John's Ambulance Brigade. I mean if you really feel that your child shouldn't touch anything remotely Christian, I would argue that they should transfer immediately to the National Cadet Corp or the National Police Cadet Corp. That has not religious inclinations at all.

As for the doctor... That doctor is silly. If he did work in the government hospital, then I think he overstep the line. If he was in private practise, then all I can say is don't visit him again. Trying to legislate religion goes against my belief that government in private lives should be kept to the minimum. Why should the state tell religions what they can and cannot do? Already there is government regulation regarding Christians spreading their faith to Muslims, so now they should be regulated on all other faiths and races? My theory is just avoid them. If they act in a public authority then they must keep the proselytizing out of their work, but if they are in private practise, businees or in a Christian school, then they have every right to talk about their faith. I would expect no less from a Muslim school.

Why do the people of Singapore keep asking the government to nanny them? Do it yourself. Just ignore the Christians. I mean if they keep coming back call the cops and say they are harassing you. If you told them politely once to back off, they have been warned. This is a matter of privacy not anti-religion. I mean if Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on you, then what give you a right to impose your anti-Christian beliefs on them? Quid pro quo. Just ignore each other. I get approached by Mormons frequently, and I tend to tell them I am not interested and they tend to leave me alone. I mean I am a cultural Catholic so I do know the arguments and theology of my own denomination as well as of others, including those of Islam.

I do agree that the teacher did overstep her bounds though. Bad teacher. Teaching is about providing opposing facts and letting young minds make their own decision about the world. Leave the teaching of religion to the churches. However on the Boys Brigade and Christian schools, I've made it quite clear that they are Christian by design, so if you don't like it go elsewhere. You can't have your cake and eat it. The doctor is just a silly little man, I cannot help but laugh. And I feel more sorry for the man with the cancer relapse. Maybe the doctor just wanted to pray since there was no hope... Who knows... That one is just plain funny.

Homosexuality in Singapore

2005-10-14T12:35:00.000-04:00

The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says

I honestly believe that the government is somewhat homophobic. Not in the sense that members of the ruling party are homophobic, but their policies are.

I can understand their policy of not wanting to upset the vast majority of the population. Politicians tend to pre-empt public opinion. We see that too often in Britain and the US. Similarly in Singapore all the politicians are trying to do is get re-elected.

While I believe that government interference in people's personal lives should be kept to the minimum. I disagree with the writer of the above article on several points.

I do not think the Christian minority is the only group trying to foist their believes on the entire population. I do believe that Muslims also feel that way. Together that's roughly 30% of the population, let's say half of them are strongly against homosexuality. I don't even know how many conservative non-Christian Chinese and Indians are out there. So let's put it at 10% of the population (and that's making the numbers very small). So roughly 25% of the population would balk at this. Now let's look at the pro-gay population. I doubt gays amount to more than 5% of the population, and their allies wouldn't be more than 10% of the population (and I am being very generous on this end). That makes 15% of the population. Which leaves the remaining 65% as the silent majority. They either don't care or don't want to talk about it. As a politician it would almost seem like the best thing to do is play to the larger group, the anti-gay coalition than the pro-gay coalition. Just because that immediately gaurantees you 25% of the vote. Of course Singaporean elections are not usually a single-issue race, so the other 65% will be won by other means.

As to comparing Thaipusam to the Nation. That's a logical stretch. One is religious and another is a lifestyle choice. Unless you're going to tell me being gay is a religion. Banning Thaipusam just because it is barbaric would mean that other religious holidays may have to go too. Ramadan can be seen as unhealthy if you want. Fasting all day and then stuffing yourself at night and before sunrise. Some Chrisitans would also have to be forced to stop fasting during Lent. Religion and lifestyle choices are two different things. So to should parades and parties. There's enough moral outrage at straight parties, gay parties would evoke even greater outrage from the moral police. Personally I think if gays want a party they should. What I dislike is the argument that the writer of the article is making. Let each approach his fate the way he feels most comfortable with. To think that Thaipusam is barbaric is to fall into the same trap that makes people think homosexuality is unnatural. Small, narrowminded and parochial.

Personally if gays want to get married, I say let them. They can deal with all the hassles of marriage and divorce. Many gays I know here in the US are anti-marriage. They are unhappy that a vocal few are spoiling their image. Some fo course are more unhappy that liberals are using them as a way to win votes in elections. The gay men I personally know (all 3 of them) think that marriage is bad for them. They don't want to deal with hassles of a divorce (instead of a breakup, which can be bad enough), and all the pressures to get married that their partners could put on them if gay marriage was allowed.

I think that to be fair though, if gays can get married (hence removing the argument that the state should regulate marriage) then polygamy and polyandry should also be allowed. It seems like the logical step. After all judegements on monogamy are also made from a moralistic point of view. Again I say if a man or woman wants to have more than one spouse, go for it. One woman is more than I can handle without going nuts.

But I think the majority of Singapore's population is not ready to accept gays in the open. It's just not ripe. Even the proposal to allow single people of the same sex to purchase HDB flats if they are over a certain age met with some moral indignation. So allowing gays in the open would cause a massive amount of social displeasure. Furthermore, it should be noted that looking at our last census, Christians (I include Catholics of course) do form a large bulk of the middle to uppermiddle income bracket. Economic clout translates to political clout. It's the same reason that gays in the US have so much clout. They have economic clout. They are largely the uppermiddle class and they fought hard. Alot of their opponents tend not to be drawn from the uppermiddle but the lowermiddle class. Economic power. It helps move the debate.

I think the gays in Singapore are asking for the sky before they've won the ground. You've had little successes here and there. You may have fought hard or not at all for it. It seems each time the government gives a little, it has been with little pressure from gays in Singapore. That's just my impression. Fight the little battles first. Fight the cultural battles, not the political one. Lest it becomes tyranny of the minority over the majority. Find allies. You may not all agree on gay marriage, but if you agree that the governments job is not to moralise issues then fight that battle first. The Civil Rights movement was people finding common ground to tackle the problem. It will disspate when the goal is met, but at least you're one step closer.

Something interesting to think about

2005-09-27T22:29:00.000-04:00

Article 22I of the Constitution

Restraining order under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
22I. The President, acting in his discretion, may cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A) where the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

This is interesting because I remember that there was a question on why the racist bloggers were not charged under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act...

Quorum
56. If objection is taken by any Member present that there are present (besides the Speaker or other Member presiding) fewer than one-quarter of the total number of Members and, after such interval as may be prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament, the Speaker or other Member presiding ascertains that the number of Members present is still less than one-quarter of the total number of Members, he shall thereupon adjourn Parliament.

This is interesting too. We only need 25% of Parliament to be there to pass laws. So in the event that a small part of the parliament wanted to enact laws they could technically prevent 75% of our lawfully elected representatives from appearing. Now that sucks. It technically means 25% of our citizens could get what they want over 75% of the rest of us. Whatever happened to tyranny of the majority?

Interestingly enough our constitution does not state who has the power to make war. I suppose it is the President. The monarch traditionally holds the power to make war and is the traditionaly commander of the troops. The head of state i suppose is invested with all powers of the executive unless otherwise stated by law. So I suppose the President can make war without the consent of parliament, plus he is the commader in chief of our armed forces. We swear allegiance to him when we enter National Service.

Just some interesting things while looking over the constituion of Singapore.

Something to read

2005-09-23T00:21:00.000-04:00

US State Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Report on Human Rights Practices 2004
Singapore

Reporters without borders Press Freedom Index 2004
(we ranked 147 out of 167)

Singapore census

Racism rears its ugly head

2005-09-16T23:08:00.000-04:00

I've heard and read the news. 3 people so far have been charged under the seditions act. Interesting use of the law. I'm sure they could have been charged under a different set of laws meant at keeping racial harmony.

Race is a touchy subject in Singapore. And although I wrote my thesis on identity, education and nationalism in Malaya after World War 2, I know well enough to steer clear of those issues here.

Everyone is implicitly racist. I don't think anyone can really deny that. I don't think we're prone to violence against other races, but I do believe that we hold certain prejudiced views and stereotypes about other races. It goes the same with other nationalities and so forth. The division of "US" and "THEM" has been around for quite a long time. The fact that there is a line drawn in the send means there will be half-truths, rumours and half-baked ideas about "THEM".

I'm glad though that these men are being prosecuted under the fullest extent that the laws allow. I'm also quite surprised that the government didn't invoke the Internal Security Act to take care of those racists.

I do believe that bloggers are a little scared right now and are unsure on what exactly to blog about. Well we could stick to the usual mundane crap, or we can continue doing what we've been doing. The one thing I realised in life is that you can do anything you want, just be responsible when the debts are called in. If you want to be an open flaming racist, by all means, just becareful when they come knocking on your door.

I also agree on the principle of "my right to do anything goes only as far as it does not impede your right to do something." Free speech can only go so far. We cannot be allowed to say anything we want. BUT (here's my caveat) if you truly and wholly believe in it, like those racists, then be my guest and go ahead. I disagree with you and I will debate you, and I'll even be happy when they take you away.

Hate does not have a place in our modern society and civilisation. Understanding is the only way to overcome fear and hate. Remember what Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..." And usually the root cause of fear is the unknown, because we do not understand we fear. And so ignorance is the root of fear. We are most afraid when we do not know. If we possesed the full knowledge of the "other," then we would have less to fear.

So remember folks, if you hate, then look at the deeper causes. Because somewhere down there is just plain ignorance. Don't hate, Educate yourself.

Privacy on the Web

2005-08-30T12:05:00.000-04:00

So I argued with my girlfriend tonight over the issue of internet privacy and if Tomorrow.sg has a right to post very personal posts on their meta-blog. Of course it became a heated argument and it devolved into other issues that she was not happy with, but that is of no consequence here.

I have several thoughts on this issue.

(1) Is publishing your thoughts on a blog, website or internet forum a copyrighted matter?

Well if someone publishes a memoir offline, copyrights apply insofar as we cannot reproduce more than a chapter or 10% of the book whichever comes first. But I can quote someone on something he has written or published. Like say for example "Hummingbird, J, The Life and Times of a Simple Man, Silly Press, 1999"

So herein lies the question. Is posting something you read about online an infringement of that person's privacy? Especially if you linked them on your site.

I personally feel if you gave credit to them, it's ok to mention them. I mean a link is like a citation. In fact in scholarly works, taking something off the internet requires you to put in the URL in place of a traditional citation.

(2) Blogs are private spaces.

Handwritten diaries are private spaces. Blogs are private insofar as you can set up password protections and limit who you tell about them. I have a friend who has a private blog which I promise not to spread. But if someone comes across it, likes it and posts it, there's little I can do about that.

The internet is a public sphere. Governments argue about how to regulate it or how not to regulate it simply because it is a beast of information freeflow.

Anything you put online is open to public scrutiny. Scholars have been passed from hiring if they blogged intellectual works that may not seem scholarly at all. My friend was told to shut down his blog if he wanted to be hired by the company, and he did so immediately.

Writing can be a way to work out demons. Whatever they are. But if you right it on the web, you know people are bound to come across it.

(3) Privacy must be respected.

Yes it must. We should not badger someone too much on what they commented. Or spam them or hack into their sites. That would be wrong. And if it is password protected but we had the honor of reading it and we think the world should know, then we should seek permission to get it shared.

Then again as a blogger myself and having to deal with my fair share of hate comments (which usually outweigh the nice comments on this blog), when you do something so public, you should expect to be read and commented upon.

I mean if a site is password protected then it is extremely wrong to hack into it to read it. It is also wrong to steal a diary and break the lock to read it. But if the person leaves the diary in the library everyday without a lock, then you cannot blame someone for reading it and posting a comment in the margins.

(4) It's a very private matter

If it's that private why write about it on a public forum. Write it down in an offline diary or journal or protect it. If it's protected and you friend posted about it, then maybe you shouldn't be friends with someone who would violate your personal wishes. Same with a friend who tells someone else your deep dark secret.

I suspect we write because we want an audience or we have an audience. And if you really were raped and wrote about it on your blog, you know you've got it coming. Writing is a good way to excorcise demons and I do it often, but I also do it offline. I don't want people to be reading my private thoughts.

(5) I want to protect it but I don't know how

I'm not sure either. Try blogsome or get your own server. These sites would protect your work and allow you to limit those who can read you. Or ask other bloggers who password protect their entires, I'm sure they'll share.

(6) Writing is soothing and helps me

Write away, but do it offline or not on the internet. No matter how much you protect it people can get to it if it's somewhere on the web. There are loopholes everywhere. I mean even offline diaries and journals are susceptible to theft by little brothers who have nothing else to do, or overworried parents.

Writing something down is a risk we take. Federal judge nominees face scrutiny on their past writings. Academics face huge scrutiny on their past works. I mean anything we write down could be left to posterity. And it can always come back to haunt us. A private diary is unlikely to haunt us, but then again some famous men have had their private diaries scrutinised long after they have died.

Conclusion

So here's my point, if you put something deemed so private on a public forum, then you cannot blame someone if he posts it on his site. It is not an infringement of intellectual property rights if he properly credits it to you.

It is a violation of your privacy, but that was the risk you took when you posted on a public forum. No two ways about it. You can ask for it to be taken down and if he refuses, again there is nothing much you can do about it. It isn't libel or slander since you wrote it yourself. It isn't intellectual theft, because he properly accredited it to you. Best way to avoid this is to password protect it or not write online about it.

As a final thought on the matter...

(7) Should the editors of Tomorrow.sg practise some standards and respect other people's privacy?

I suppose they could. But we can't force them either. They're a meta-blog, they set out to trawl the net to find things that are worth reading. If you're private thoughts are worth reading because they are profound thoughts or because it is sensational, then they'll post it.

The judegement as to whether or not they should sensationalise their site is entirely theirs to make. I mean we can boycott them if we think they've crossed the line too many times. It's the same reason why I don't read the New Paper because they're nothing more than a tabloid.

Are there ethical and moral issues involved, yes there is, but we cannot assume to hold everyone to high standards. To post something is a judgement call, and if it's out there in the open, we assume that they're ok if someone read it. And so as long as we properly credit it, we're good on IPR.

So I leave this issue as it is, a seemingly unsolvable mess. Who's right in this respect is diffcult to say. My only advise is not to post private matters online, it'll see the light of day eventually. Putting such thoughts online is asking for attention whether conciously or subconciously, when you get it, don't be upset if it is negative. Deal with the consquences of your actions like an adult and not a petulant child, most of our problems are self-inflicted not someone else's fault.

tomorrow.sg

Live8 Petition

2005-07-02T23:27:00.000-04:00

The 8 most powerful leaders in the world

50,000 people are dying, needlessly, every day of extreme poverty.

At this year's G8 summit meeting, it is within your power to put an end to this tragedy. It is an extraordinary opportunity which it would be shameful to ignore. We urge you to take these 3 steps to make extreme poverty history...

double the aid sent to the world's poorest countries,
fully cancel their debts,
change the trade laws so that they can build their own future.

I think that's stupid. The bleeding heart leftists should really give up. Oh and they can take their brainless celebs with them. Let us more practical leftists, centerists and rightists take care of the serious stuff, go play with your bong and theorize on how the Man keeps everyone down over a cup of coffee.

Here's why poverty cannot be eradicated with this petition:

Point 1: To double aid taxes must be increased in rich countries. So the poor folk in the G8 nations get screwed into paying more taxes to help other poor folk. So how is poverty alleviated again? If we don't raise money through taxation then we have to use government bonds. Which means the good old USA goes more into debt. Yes, I know the G8 nations aren't always the biggest donors (I'm looking at the Scandinavian countries).

Point 2: Fully cancelling their debt doesn't do much. Many poor countries also have corrupt and inefficient governments. They'll just get into more debt. When should we stop sending aid? So I get double the aid that I never have to pay back, why should I bother cleaning up my act? Take rich african nations who get rich on oil, their people are still poor. But their leaders are strangely enough filthy rich. Hmmmm...

Point 3: this one makes the most sense. Many rich countries have protectionist laws, but so do many poor countries. Let's remove all barriers to trade and let the chips fall where they may. You know that this means that some poor countries may actually be driven out of business by more efficient producers, right? I assume when you say change trade laws you do mean ending the barriers to trade and subsidies. Unless you mean we'll pay them to be inefficient porducers. Hey more aid!

So here's where I think whoever started this is a retard. The heart is there but the brain has been too damaged by all that pot smoking. Instead of doubling aid, how about restructuring aid so that it is unconditional? So instead of American aid only going to certain porjects or companies, how about letting the recieving nations make the decision. Also, send aid in the form that is needed. Instead of useless aid that has no real use in the recieving countries.

How about these poor countries shape up their act. Get rid of their corrupt bureaucracies and over powerful armies. How about that? How about removing their so-called "tribalism" and regional loyalties? How about getting of aid all together. It's like Clintonian welfare reforms, if you can't find a job after a certain time, you're cut off.

I agree reform the trade system. Scrap all subsidies and protectionist laws. Let inefficient producers die out (rich or poor nation doesn't matter). Let the consumers pay the full price instead of subsidised prices.

One more suggestion how about we stop paying all these rock stars and movie stars so much. How about instead of buting their albums we send money to aid programs? There are alot of NGOs who do good work, although I must warn you they also have their own agendas and like to exaggerate issues for their own benefit. Their not as altruistic as you might assume. Remember everyone has an agenda. Yeah... So how about not wasting all this money putting on rock concerts which drain resources (think electricity, noise pollution, money, security) and putting that money into these poor nations.

Oh yeah guess who's behind Live 8. Media companies. Ho ho... can you smell the advertising profits?

Poor African nations, getting screwed over by big business. Come two months and you'll be forgotten yet again until some aging pop star decides that he needs to assuage his liberal guilt and boost his presence in the world again. I mean seriously why don't they just give you half of the millions they make each year? Not all, just 1/2. That'd be more aid than what some nations give, and with no strings attached. Plus I mean rich nation governments still need to keep their country and economies going. Bono only need at most a million dollars to survive. I mean most of us live on less than US$40,000 a year. So how about that mr rock star. you make at least a million a year. So how about you donate $500,000 every year?Wow! How about that. Stupid selfish fuck.

Stupid bleeding heart leftists and their warped perception of the world. Impractical and absolutely stupid. GO smoke your weed man. And leave the real world to us.

It's been a long time

2005-06-22T01:55:00.000-04:00

Hello folks. Sorry it's been a while. Graduating and moving house is not so easy. And then entertaining friends visiting is also very time consuming.

Well I'm home and soaking up the rays. Deciding my future. I mean only two more years and I have to come back. Looking around and realising I don't quite like it here, but it isn't bad either.

Nothing interesting on the news front lately. The sg bloggers are gearing up towards a convention. Maybe I will show face, but I am not sure which hat to wear. Seeing as how I have two faces. Like Janus.

Slow news days lately. Nothing interesting. Home is boring. So far this is the best news I've heard. And by best I mean silliest. Sue OPEC? At which court? This is silly shit. Silly silly senators.

Yup. Sorry. Slow news year. Ha ha... I mean the casino...erm... Integrated Resorts are going to be built so no point talking about that.

Have a good week.

Comments on Singapore

2005-04-21T22:05:00.000-04:00

Mr. McDermott has weighed in on what he thinks of the general Singapore blogsphere. I tend to agree to some extent. I wouldn't go as far as to call it infantile as to argue that their more whimsical and at time cynical. I cannot claim to have Mr McDermott's training in sociology, economics or anything else. I'm just a BA in history, but I can say from studying Turkey, Eygpt and other countries that have somewhat similiar situations like Singapore at one time or another, cynicism and humor are tools with which people oppose the state.

I guess Yael Navaro-Yashin's book "Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey" is a good book which talks about this. Especially in chapter 5. Sometimes when the State is all pervasive, and there is no real action the citizens can take since they are in every way touched by the State, there is little recourse but to resort to cynicism and humor as tools to battle the state. I realised that Singaporeans do that alot. That's my defense for mr brown.

As for Xiaxue, I point you to my contribution to the good brudders at The Voiddeck. I personally don't care for her. But I suppose she appeals to a group of Singaporeans who are younger and would prefer to concentrate on such trivial things. But that's my opinion. I believe Mr McDermott to be a little too harsh by dismissing Singapore's blogsphere as infantile. We're a little diverse right now, also a little lost. I believe the political blogs need to buck up and hold tight. We've done a good job so far, let's keep going.

SM Goh Abroad

2005-03-24T15:05:00.000-05:00

Singapore is not a liberal democracy, says Goh

Senior Goh Chok Tong wowwed his audience at a conference in London, by telling them that Singapore was not a liberal democracy and that we didn't have 'a totally independent' press.
He was the keynote speaker at the Singapore Conference, attended by around 200 corporate leaders and part of a smorgasbord of events billed as the Singapore Season.

Other events within the Singapore Season included arts performances, talks, and a food festival. The Straits Times described the Singapore Season as "the first concerted push by the Government to showcase Singapore art and culture abroad." -- same ST article as quoted below.

One can assume that the Singapore Season was meant as a huge roadshow to give investors and potential knowledge expatriates a picture of Singapore that was not uniformly sterile or totalitarian, a very common image we have abroad. Goh was there to do his part.

Here is the relevant portion from the second of the two Straits Times articles about the Singapore Conference, titled, 'Tiger beer, a musician and a whole lot of Singapore creativity'. This article summarised the question and answer session that followed Goh's keynote address:

Along with the push to get the population to think out of the box, SM Goh said: 'On the political side, we must accommodate other creative views.'

Responding to a question on whether Singapore is a democracy or a dictatorship, SM Goh said that Singapore is a democracy, but 'not a liberal democracy like in Britain or in the US'.

There is an independent judiciary system, although the Government does not believe in 'a totally independent press', but one that was 'responsible'.

The media in Singapore must reflect Singapore's interests, he said, repeating a point made by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts in The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao forum pages recently.

Foreign journalists hired by the Singapore media, for example, should represent Singapore's views, not that of their countries of origin, he said.

-- Straits Times 16 March 2005

Taken from Yawning Bread

That is a really obvious statement of course. Based on Fareed's article on Illiberal Democracy, we obviously know that we are an illiberal democracy. Although Fareed might not even but Singapore in that category.

Sigh sigh... I thought he would have something more enlightening to say...

Catching up on Singapore news

2005-03-15T01:51:00.000-05:00

Woah... Haven't read about the news from home in so long. Stupid ST (grumble grumble), but after reading Mr.Brown's March 10 SNE I am shocked.

So some guy gets charged for cocaine possession but because he is rich he gets bail? And then is allowed to skip it? I assumed that being on bail requires you to get a passport? He just slipped through the cracks or crack for that matter? I mean seriously... I remember a while back that some guy who got charged for heroin possession kept trying to appeal for clememcy got denied over and over again. He wasn't asking to be free, just life imprisonment, and still kena hanged. WTF!?! Man it pays to be rich.

Then the boss of Premier Taxi got away with the slap in the wrist for road rage. Wow. Amazing what money can buy in meritocratic Singapore.

Once I cynically told my friends that the law is fair to both rich and poor. Both may not sleep under bridges, bed on the streets or steal to feed their starving children, but this is ridiculous. I understand that Singapore law bends to the one-who-must-not-be-named (otherwise I kena libel charges), but now it also bends over backwards for the rich. Sial lah... Our legal system is like a crack whore whole bend over and take it up the ass, as long as you can pay it. Wow. I am so disappointed in my homeland now. Kenneth Lay (of Enron fame)should have run PUB, at least he could have gotten away with it here. Just skip bail.

Ha ha, SPH has a new megazine for youths called IN. I guess there's not enough space to add CAHOOTS. Man, if you're a young person, read singaporean blogs. That way you know the editorials are honest, true and do not have a government slant. Or so I would like you to think (long live the Emperor).

After reading several SNE i have come to a conclusion that some Singaporeans are dumb. They direct questions about government policy to the ST instead of the departments themselves. Funny, but also telling that the department would probably give them the run around and that the ST is the government.

A Rally

2005-03-13T01:43:00.000-05:00

This week's void deck updates are amazing. I want to give a shout out to my brudders there for an absolutely great job.

I enjoyed the Torwa interview and I agree with him on many points.

But therein lies our strength and weakness. As a community we have proven that we can be an intelligent, engaged and motivated group. We have passionate members who continue to chip away at a seemingly monumental task. We also have extremely humorous takes on serious situations. We also have brilliant theorists and thinkers amongst us. Therein also lies our weakness, we know how to rant but not entirely sure how to act.

I often ask myself that question. Do we have a manifesto? An action plan? Why are we blogging? For 15 minutes of fame or just to vent our frustrations? Is this just an evolution of coffee shop banter? Are we no different from the uncles at the coffee shops with their Carlsberg and Tiger?

I sat long and hard and questioned my intentions. I realise that my goal when i first started was to rally people around a cause. To encourage more voices to speak up and speak out. My brudders at the Void Deck assure me that it was my suggestion that encouraged them to act as a clearing house for blogs. Thanks to their hard work, I actually see and hear the voice of the people.

So now I know there are others who are out there. I asked myself what now. Well the next question is who will be brave enough to organise the bloggers? Torwa has already stated he's out, so who will it be? This one I can't be for sure. I'm not free enough currently to organise anything, and my brudders at the Void Deck do a good job at organising in a sense. So perhaps the leadership is in their hands.

Well next quesiton is, why are we on the defensive? In the Goh Meng See article, who points out that Opposition is such a negative word. So similiarly we have been labelled "apathetic" by the government and media. If you allow others the power to name you, you become the thing they call you. It is so often seen throughout history. Why should we allow others to name us? Let us name ourselves. We've already proven that we're not just sitting around and taking it. We're not apathetic, we care.

So this is my call to all bloggers, let us begin a blog campaign to rewrite ourselves into Singaporean society. We already let a Straits Times article define us. Let us redefine ourselves. I will start the ball rolling by writing an article on what I think of Singapore blogs. I will make it the antithesis of the Straits Times article. I will not be named by them, I will name myself.

A good read

2005-03-09T15:59:00.000-05:00

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

By Fareed Zakaria

From Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West, democracy -- free and fair elections -- has gone hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law and basic human rights. But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies.
Fareed Zakaria is Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs and a Contributing Editor for Newsweek.

THE NEXT WAVE

The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair," he said, and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life -- illiberal democracy.

It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice." Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not.

Today, 118 of the world's 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago. In this season of victory, one might have expected Western statesmen and intellectuals to go one further than E. M. Forster and give a rousing three cheers for democracy. Instead there is a growing unease at the rapid spread of multiparty elections across south-central Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, perhaps because of what happens after the elections. Popular leaders like Russia's Boris Yeltsin and Argentina's Carlos Menem bypass their parliaments and rule by presidential decree, eroding basic constitutional practices. The Iranian parliament -- elected more freely than most in the Middle East -- imposes harsh restrictions on speech, assembly, and even dress, diminishing that country's already meager supply of liberty. Ethiopia's elected government turns its security forces on journalists and political opponents, doing permanent damage to human rights (as well as human beings).

Naturally there is a spectrum of illiberal democracy, ranging from modest offenders like Argentina to near-tyrannies like Kazakstan and Belarus, with countries like Romania and Bangladesh in between. Along much of the spectrum, elections are rarely as free and fair as in the West today, but they do reflect the reality of popular participation in politics and support for those elected. And the examples are not isolated or atypical. Freedom House's 1996-97 survey, Freedom in the World, has separate rankings for political liberties and civil liberties, which correspond roughly with democracy and constitutional liberalism, respectively. Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, 50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the "democratizing" countries in the world today are illiberal democracies.

Illiberal democracy is a growth industry. Seven years ago only 22 percent of democratizing countries could have been so categorized; five years ago that figure had risen to 35 percent. And to date few illiberal democracies have matured into liberal democracies; if anything, they are moving toward heightened illiberalism. Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism. Just as nations across the world have become comfortable with many variations of capitalism, they could well adopt and sustain varied forms of democracy. Western liberal democracy might prove to be not the final destination on the democratic road, but just one of many possible exits.

DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY

From the time of Herodotus democracy has meant, first and foremost, the rule of the people. This view of democracy as a process of selecting governments, articulated by scholars ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Joseph Schumpeter to Robert Dahl, is now widely used by social scientists. In The Third Wave, Samuel P. Huntington explains why:

Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted,

irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political systems.

This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it democratic. When public participation in politics is increased, for example through the enfranchisement of women, it is seen as more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on television, and England has an established religion. But they are all clearly and identifiably democracies. To have democracy mean, subjectively, "a good government" renders it analytically useless.

Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty.< It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.

THE ROAD TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Since 1945 Western governments have, for the most part, embodied both democracy and constitutional liberalism. Thus it is difficult to imagine the two apart, in the form of either illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy. In fact both have existed in the past and persist in the present. Until the twentieth century, most countries in Western Europe were liberal autocracies or, at best, semi-democracies. The franchise was tightly restricted, and elected legislatures had little power. In 1830 Great Britain, in some ways the most democratic European nation, allowed barely 2 percent of its population to vote for one house of Parliament; that figure rose to 7 percent after 1867 and reached around 40 percent in the 1880s. Only in the late 1940s did most Western countries become full-fledged democracies, with universal adult suffrage. But one hundred years earlier, by the late 1840s, most of them had adopted important aspects of constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law, private property rights, and increasingly, separated powers and free speech and assembly. For much of modern history, what characterized governments in Europe and North America, and differentiated them from those around the world, was not democracy but constitutional liberalism. The "Western model" is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.

The recent history of East Asia follows the Western itinerary. After brief flirtations with democracy after World War II, most East Asian regimes turned authoritarian. Over time they moved from autocracy to liberalizing autocracy, and, in some cases, toward liberalizing semi-democracy. Most of the regimes in East Asia remain only semi-democratic, with patriarchs or one-party systems that make their elections ratifications of power rather than genuine contests. But these regimes have accorded their citizens a widening sphere of economic, civil, religious, and limited political rights. As in the West, liberalization in East Asia has included economic liberalization, which is crucial in promoting both growth and liberal democracy. Historically, the factors most closely associated with full-fledged liberal democracies are capitalism, a bourgeoisie, and a high per capita GNP. Today's East Asian governments are a mix of democracy, liberalism, capitalism, oligarchy, and corruption -- much like Western governments circa 1900.

Constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. In contrast to the Western and East Asian paths, during the last two decades in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, dictatorships with little background in constitutional liberalism have given way to democracy. The results are not encouraging. In the western hemisphere, with elections having been held in every country except Cuba, a 1993 study by the scholar Larry Diamond determined that 10 of the 22 principal Latin American countries "have levels of human rights abuse that are incompatible with the consolidation of [liberal] democracy." In Africa, democratization has been extraordinarily rapid. Within six months in 1990 much of Francophone Africa lifted its ban on multiparty politics. Yet although elections have been held in most of the 45 sub-Saharan states since 1991 (18 in 1996 alone), there have been setbacks for freedom in many countries. One of Africa's most careful observers, Michael Chege, surveyed the wave of democratization and drew the lesson that the continent had "overemphasized multiparty elections . . . and correspondingly neglected the basic tenets of liberal governance." In Central Asia, elections, even when reasonably free, as in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan, have resulted in strong executives, weak legislatures and judiciaries, and few civil and economic liberties. In the Islamic world, from the Palestinian Authority to Iran to Pakistan, democratization has led to an increasing role for theocratic politics, eroding long-standing traditions of secularism and tolerance. In many parts of that world, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and some of the Gulf States, were elections to be held tomorrow, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be more illiberal than the ones now in place.

Many of the countries of Central Europe, on the other hand, have moved successfully from communism to liberal democracy, having gone through the same phase of liberalization without democracy as other European countries did during the nineteenth century. Indeed, the Austro-Hungarian empire, to which most belonged, was a classic liberal autocracy. Even outside Europe, the political scientist Myron Weiner detected a striking connection between a constitutional past and a liberal democratic present. He pointed out that, as of 1983, "every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony." British rule meant not democracy -- colonialism is by definition undemocratic -- but constitutional liberalism. Britain's legacy of law and administration has proved more beneficial than France's policy of enfranchising some of its colonial populations.

While liberal autocracies may have existed in the past, can one imagine them today? Until recently, a small but powerful example flourished off the Asian mainland -- Hong Kong. For 156 years, until July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was ruled by the British Crown through an appointed governor general. Until 1991 it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy. A September 8, 1997, editorial on the island's future in The Washington Post was titled ominously, "Undoing Hong Kong's Democracy." Actually, Hong Kong has precious little democracy to undo; what it has is a framework of rights and laws. Small islands may not hold much practical significance in today's world, but they do help one weigh the relative value of democracy and constitutional liberalism. Consider, for example, the question of where you would rather live, Haiti, an illiberal democracy, or Antigua, a liberal semi-democracy. Your choice would probably relate not to the weather, which is pleasant in both, but to the political climate, which is not.

ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY

John Stuart Mill opened his classic On Liberty by noting that as countries became democratic, people tended to believe that "too much importance had been attached to the limitation of power itself. That . . . was a response against rulers whose interests were opposed to those of the people." Once the people were themselves in charge, caution was unnecessary. "The nation did not need to be protected against its own will." As if confirming Mill's fears, consider the words of Alexandr Lukashenko after being elected president of Belarus with an overwhelming majority in a free election in 1994, when asked about limiting his powers: "There will be no dictatorship. I am of the people, and I am going to be for the people."

The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that "the danger of oppression" in a democracy came from "the majority of the community." Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," writing, "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority."

The tendency for a democratic government to believe it has absolute sovereignty (that is, power) can result in the centralization of authority, often by extraconstitutional means and with grim results. Over the last decade, elected governments claiming to represent the people have steadily encroached on the powers and rights of other elements in society, a usurpation that is both horizontal (from other branches of the national government) and vertical (from regional and local authorities as well as private businesses and other nongovernmental groups). Lukashenko and Peru's Alberto Fujimori are only the worst examples of this practice. (While Fujimori's actions -- disbanding the legislature and suspending the constitution, among others -- make it difficult to call his regime democratic, it is worth noting that he won two elections and was extremely popular until recently.) Even a bona fide reformer like Carlos Menem has passed close to 300 presidential decrees in his eight years in office, about three times as many as all previous Argentinean presidents put together, going back to 1853. Kyrgyzstan's Askar Akayev, elected with 60 percent of the vote, proposed enhancing his powers in a referendum that passed easily in 1996. His new powers include appointing all top officials except the prime minister, although he can dissolve parliament if it turns down three of his nominees for the latter post.

Horizontal usurpation, usually by presidents, is more obvious, but vertical usurpation is more common. Over the last three decades, the Indian government has routinely disbanded state legislatures on flimsy grounds, placing regions under New Delhi's direct rule. In a less dramatic but typical move, the elected government of the Central African Republic recently ended the long-standing independence of its university system, making it part of the central state apparatus.

Usurpation is particularly widespread in Latin America and the states of the former Soviet Union, perhaps because both regions mostly have presidencies. These systems tend to produce strong leaders who believe that they speak for the people -- even when they have been elected by no more than a plurality. (As Juan Linz points out, Salvador Allende was elected to the Chilean presidency in 1970 with only 36 percent of the vote. In similar circumstances, a prime minister would have had to share power in a coalition government.) Presidents appoint cabinets of cronies, rather than senior party figures, maintaining few internal checks on their power. And when their views conflict with those of the legislature, or even the courts, presidents tend to "go to the nation," bypassing the dreary tasks of bargaining and coalition-building. While scholars debate the merits of presidential versus parliamentary forms of government, usurpation can occur under either, absent well-developed alternate centers of power such as strong legislatures, courts, political parties, regional governments, and independent universities and media. Latin America actually combines presidential systems with proportional representation, producing populist leaders and multiple parties -- an unstable combination.

Many Western governments and scholars have encouraged the creation of strong and centralized states in the Third World. Leaders in these countries have argued that they need the authority to break down feudalism, split entrenched coalitions, override vested interests, and bring order to chaotic societies. But this confuses the need for a legitimate government with that for a powerful one. Governments that are seen as legitimate can usually maintain order and pursue tough policies, albeit slowly, by building coalitions. After all, few claim that governments in developing countries should not have adequate police powers; the trouble comes from all the other political, social, and economic powers that they accumulate. In crises like civil wars, constitutional governments might not be able to rule effectively, but the alternative -- states with vast security apparatuses that suspend constitutional rights -- has usually produced neither order nor good government. More often, such states have become predatory, maintaining some order but also arresting opponents, muzzling dissent, nationalizing industries, and confiscating property. While anarchy has its dangers, the greatest threats to human liberty and happiness in this century have been caused not by disorder but by brutally strong, centralized states, like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. The Third World is littered with the bloody handiwork of strong states.

Historically, unchecked centralization has been the enemy of liberal democracy. As political participation increased in Europe over the nineteenth century, it was accommodated smoothly in countries such as England and Sweden, where medieval assemblies, local governments, and regional councils had remained strong. Countries like France and Prussia, on the other hand, where the monarchy had effectively centralized power (both horizontally and vertically), often ended up illiberal and undemocratic. It is not a coincidence that in twentieth-century Spain, the beachhead of liberalism lay in Catalonia, for centuries a doggedly independent and autonomous region. In America, the presence of a rich variety of institutions -- state, local, and private -- made it much easier to accommodate the rapid and large extensions in suffrage that took place in the early nineteenth century. Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has documented how, during America's first 50 years, virtually every state, interest group and faction tried to weaken and even break up the federal government. More recently, India's semi-liberal democracy has survived because of, not despite, its strong regions and varied languages, cultures, and even castes. The point is logical, even tautological: pluralism in the past helps ensure political pluralism in the present.

Fifty years ago, politicians in the developing world wanted extraordinary powers to implement then-fashionable economic doctrines, like nationalization of industries. Today their successors want similar powers to privatize those very industries. Menem's justification for his methods is that they are desperately needed to enact tough economic reforms. Similar arguments are made by Abdal Bucarem of Ecuador and by Fujimori. Lending institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have been sympathetic to these pleas, and the bond market has been positively exuberant. But except in emergencies like war, illiberal means are in the long run incompatible with liberal ends. Constitutional government is in fact the key to a successful economic reform policy. The experience of East Asia and Central Europe suggests that when regimes -- whether authoritarian, as in East Asia, or liberal democratic, as in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic -- protect individual rights, including those of property and contract, and create a framework of law and administration, capitalism and growth will follow. In a recent speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, explaining what it takes for capitalism to flourish, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan concluded that, "The guiding mechanism of a free market economy. . . is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary"

Finally, and perhaps more important, power accumulated to do good can be used subsequently to do ill. When Fujimori disbanded parliament, his approval ratings shot up to their highest ever. But recent opinion polls suggest that most of those who once approved of his actions now wish he were more constrained. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin famously (and literally) attacked the Russian parliament, prompted by parliament's own unconstitutional acts. He then suspended the constitutional court, dismantled the system of local governments, and fired several provincial governors. From the war in Chechnya to his economic programs, Yeltsin has displayed a routine lack of concern for constitutional procedures and limits. He may well be a liberal democrat at heart, but Yeltsin's actions have created a Russian super-presidency. We can only hope his successor will not abuse it.

For centuries Western intellectuals have had a tendency to view constitutional liberalism as a quaint exercise in rule-making, mere formalism that should take a back seat to battling larger evils in society. The most eloquent counterpoint to this view remains an exchange in Robert Bolt's play A Man For All Seasons. The fiery young William Roper, who yearns to battle evil, is exasperated by Sir Thomas More's devotion to the law. More gently defends himself.

More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut every law in England to do that!

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you -- where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat?

ETHNIC CONFLICT AND WAR

On December 8, 1996, Jack Lang made a dramatic dash to Belgrade. The French celebrity politician, formerly minister of culture, had been inspired by the student demonstrations involving tens of thousands against Slobodan Milosevic, a man Lang and many Western intellectuals held responsible for the war in the Balkans. Lang wanted to lend his moral support to the Yugoslav opposition. The leaders of the movement received him in their offices -- the philosophy department -- only to boot him out, declare him "an enemy of the Serbs," and order him to leave the country. It turned out that the students opposed Milosevic not for starting the war, but for failing to win it.

Lang's embarrassment highlights two common, and often mistaken, assumptions -- that the forces of democracy are the forces of ethnic harmony and of peace. Neither is necessarily true. Mature liberal democracies can usually accommodate ethnic divisions without violence or terror and live in peace with other liberal democracies. But without a background in constitutional liberalism, the introduction of democracy in divided societies has actually fomented nationalism, ethnic conflict, and even war. The spate of elections held immediately after the collapse of communism were won in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia by nationalist separatists and resulted in the breakup of those countries. This was not in and of itself bad, since those countries had been bound together by force. But the rapid secessions, without guarantees, institutions, or political power for the many minorities living within the new countries, have caused spirals of rebellion, repression, and, in places like Bosnia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, war.

Elections require that politicians compete for peoples' votes. In societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, it is easiest to organize support along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. Once an ethnic group is in power, it tends to exclude other ethnic groups. Compromise seems impossible; one can bargain on material issues like housing, hospitals, and handouts, but how does one split the difference on a national religion? Political competition that is so divisive can rapidly degenerate into violence. Opposition movements, armed rebellions, and coups in Africa have often been directed against ethnically based regimes, many of which came to power through elections. Surveying the breakdown of African and Asian democracies in the 1960s, two scholars concluded that democracy "is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences." Recent studies, particularly of Africa and Central Asia, have confirmed this pessimism. A distinguished expert on ethnic conflict, Donald Horowitz, concluded, "In the face of this rather dismal account . . . of the concrete failures of democracy in divided societies . . . one is tempted to throw up one's hands. What is the point of holding elections if all they do in the end is to substitute a Bemba-dominated regime for a Nyanja regime in Zambia, the two equally narrow, or a southern regime for a northern one in Benin, neither incorporating the other half of the state?"

Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the "democratic peace" -- the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debate raises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even the statistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies and wars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has ever won the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars -- that is, the public -- make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actually they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with other democracies that the peace holds.

When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace. Writing in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that democracies were tyrannical, and he specifically excluded them from his conception of "republican" governments, which lived in a zone of peace. Republicanism, for Kant, meant a separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and some level of representation in government (though nothing close to universal suffrage). Kant's other explanations for the "perpetual peace" between republics are all closely linked to their constitutional and liberal character: a mutual respect for the rights of each other's citizens, a system of checks and balances assuring that no single leader can drag his country into war, and classical liberal economic policies -- most importantly, free trade -- which create an interdependence that makes war costly and cooperation useful. Michael Doyle, the leading scholar on the subject, confirms in his 1997 book Ways of War and Peace that without constitutional liberalism, democracy itself has no peace-inducing qualities:

Kant distrusted unfettered, democratic majoritarianism, and his argument offers no support for a claim that all participatory polities -- democracies -- should be peaceful, either in general or between fellow democracies. Many participatory polities have been non-liberal. For two thousand years before the modern age, popular rule was widely associated with aggressiveness (by Thucydides) or imperial success (by Machiavelli) . . . The decisive preference of [the] median voter might well include "ethnic cleansing" against other democratic polities.

The distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies. In countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands. Political and military leaders, who are often embattled remnants of the old authoritarian order, realize that to succeed that they must rally the masses behind a national cause. The result is invariably aggressive rhetoric and policies, which often drag countries into confrontation and war. Noteworthy examples range from Napoleon III's France, Wilhelmine Germany, and Taisho Japan to those in today's newspapers, like Armenia and Azerbaijan and Milosevic's Serbia. The democratic peace, it turns out, has little to do with democracy.

THE AMERICAN PATH

An American scholar recently traveled to Kazakstan on a U.S. government-sponsored mission to help the new parliament draft its electoral laws. His counterpart, a senior member of the Kazak parliament, brushed aside the many options the American expert was outlining, saying emphatically, "We want our parliament to be just like your Congress." The American was horrified, recalling, "I tried to say something other than the three words that had immediately come screaming into my mind: 'No you don't!'" This view is not unusual. Americans in the democracy business tend to see their own system as an unwieldy contraption that no other country should put up with. In fact, the adoption of some aspects of the American constitutional framework could ameliorate many of the problems associated with illiberal democracy. The philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution, a fear of accumulated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789. Kazakstan, as it happens, would be particularly well-served by a strong parliament -- like the American Congress -- to check the insatiable appetite of its president.

It is odd that the United States is so often the advocate of elections and plebiscitary democracy abroad. What is distinctive about the American system is not how democratic it is but rather how undemocratic it is, placing as it does multiple constraints on electoral majorities. Of its three branches of government, one -- arguably paramount -- is headed by nine unelected men and women with life tenure. Its Senate is the most unrepresentative upper house in the world, with the lone exception of the House of Lords, which is powerless. (Every state sends two senators to Washington regardless of its population -- California's 30 million people have as many votes in the Senate as Arizona's 3.7 million -- which means that senators representing about 16 percent of the country can block any proposed law.) Similarly, in legislatures all over the United States, what is striking is not the power of majorities but that of minorities. To further check national power, state and local governments are strong and fiercely battle every federal intrusion onto their turf. Private businesses and other nongovernmental groups, what Tocqueville called intermediate associations, make up another stratum within society.

The American system is based on an avowedly pessimistic conception of human nature, assuming that people cannot be trusted with power. "If men were angels," Madison famously wrote, "no government would be necessary." The other model for democratic governance in Western history is based on the French Revolution. The French model places its faith in the goodness of human beings. Once the people are the source of power, it should be unlimited so that they can create a just society. (The French revolution, as Lord Acton observed, is not about the limitation of sovereign power but the abrogation of all intermediate powers that get in its way.) Most non-Western countries have embraced the French model -- not least because political elites like the prospect of empowering the state, since that means empowering themselves -- and most have descended into bouts of chaos, tyranny, or both. This should have come as no surprise. After all, since its revolution France itself has run through two monarchies, two empires, one proto-fascist dictatorship, and five republics.

Of course cultures vary, and different societies will require different frameworks of government. This is not a plea for the wholesale adoption of the American way but rather for a more variegated conception of liberal democracy, one that emphasizes both parts of that phrase. Before new policies can be adopted, there lies an intellectual task of recovering the constitutional liberal tradition, central to the Western experience and to the development of good government throughout the world. Political progress in Western history has been the result of a growing recognition over the centuries that, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, human beings have "certain inalienable rights" and that "it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted." If a democracy does not preserve liberty and law, that it is a democracy is a small consolation.

LIBERALIZING FOREIGN POLICY

A proper appreciation of constitutional liberalism has a variety of implications for American foreign policy. First, it suggests a certain humility. While it is easy to impose elections on a country, it is more difficult to push constitutional liberalism on a society. The process of genuine liberalization and democratization is gradual and long-term, in which an election is only one step. Without appropriate preparation, it might even be a false step. Recognizing this, governments and nongovernmental organizations are increasingly promoting a wide array of measures designed to bolster constitutional liberalism in developing countries. The National Endowment for Democracy promotes free markets, independent labor movements, and political parties. The U.S. Agency for International Development funds independent judiciaries. In the end, however, elections trump everything. If a country holds elections, Washington and the world will tolerate a great deal from the resulting government, as they have with Yeltsin, Akayev, and Menem. In an age of images and symbols, elections are easy to capture on film. (How do you televise the rule of law?) But there is life after elections, especially for the people who live there.

Conversely, the absence of free and fair elections should be viewed as one flaw, not the definition of tyranny. Elections are an important virtue of governance, but they are not the only virtue. Governments should be judged by yardsticks related to constitutional liberalism as well. Economic, civil, and religious liberties are at the core of human autonomy and dignity. If a government with limited democracy steadily expands these freedoms, it should not be branded a dictatorship. Despite the limited political choice they offer, countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand provide a better environment for the life, liberty, and happiness of their citizens than do either dictatorships like Iraq and Libya or illiberal democracies like Slovakia or Ghana. And the pressures of global capitalism can push the process of liberalization forward. Markets and morals can work together. Even China, which remains a deeply repressive regime, has given its citizens more autonomy and economic liberty than they have had in generations. Much more needs to change before China can even be called a liberalizing autocracy, but that should not mask the fact that much has changed.

Finally, we need to revive constitutionalism. One effect of the overemphasis on pure democracy is that little effort is given to creating imaginative constitutions for transitional countries. Constitutionalism, as it was understood by its greatest eighteenth century exponents, such as Montesquieu and Madison, is a complicated system of checks and balances designed to prevent the accumulation of power and the abuse of office. This is done not by simply writing up a list of rights but by constructing a system in which government will not violate those rights. Various groups must be included and empowered because, as Madison explained, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Constitutions were also meant to tame the passions of the public, creating not simply democratic but also deliberative government. Unfortunately, the rich variety of unelected bodies, indirect voting, federal arrangements, and checks and balances that characterized so many of the formal and informal constitutions of Europe are now regarded with suspicion. What could be called the Weimar syndrome -- named after interwar Germany's beautifully constructed constitution, which failed to avert fascism -- has made people regard constitutions as simply paperwork that cannot make much difference. (As if any political system in Germany would have easily weathered military defeat, social revolution, the Great Depression, and hyperinflation.) Procedures that inhibit direct democracy are seen as inauthentic, muzzling the voice of the people. Today around the world we see variations on the same majoritarian theme. But the trouble with these winner-take-all systems is that, in most democratizing countries, the winner really does take all.

DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENTS

We live in a democratic age. Through much of human history the danger to an individual's life, liberty and happiness came from the absolutism of monarchies, the dogma of churches, the terror of dictatorships, and the iron grip of totalitarianism. Dictators and a few straggling totalitarian regimes still persist, but increasingly they are anachronisms in a world of global markets, information, and media. There are no longer respectable alternatives to democracy; it is part of the fashionable attire of modernity. Thus the problems of governance in the 21st century will likely be problems within democracy. This makes them more difficult to handle, wrapped as they are in the mantle of legitimacy.

Illiberal democracies gain legitimacy, and thus strength, from the fact that they are reasonably democratic. Conversely, the greatest danger that illiberal democracy poses -- other than to its own people -- is that it will discredit liberal democracy itself, casting a shadow on democratic governance. This would not be unprecedented. Every wave of democracy has been followed by setbacks in which the system was seen as inadequate and new alternatives were sought by ambitious leaders and restless masses. The last such period of disenchantment, in Europe during the interwar years, was seized upon by demagogues, many of whom were initially popular and even elected. Today, in the face of a spreading virus of illiberalism, the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is -- instead of searching for new lands to democratize and new places to hold elections -- to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war. Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson took America into the twentieth century with a challenge, to make the world safe for democracy. As we approach the next century, our task is to make democracy safe for the world.

Taken from Foreign Affairs Magazine

Ode to the Nice Guys

2005-03-05T19:25:00.000-05:00

Ode to the Nice Guys

This one is a good one:

Ode to the Nice Guys
This rant was written for the Wharton Undergraduate Journal

This is a tribute to the nice guys. The nice guys that finish last, that never become more than friends, that endure hours of whining and bitching about what assholes guys are, while disproving the very point. This is dedicated to those guys who always provide a shoulder to lean on but restrain themselves to tentative hugs, those guys who hold open doors and give reassuring pats on the back and sit patiently outside the changing room at department stores. This is in honor of the guys that obligingly reiterate how cute/beautiful/smart/funny/sexy their female friends are at the appropriate moment, because they know most girls need that litany of support. This is in honor of the guys with open minds, with laid-back attitudes, with honest concern. This is in honor of the guys who respect a girl’s every facet, from her privacy to her theology to her clothing style.

This is for the guys who escort their drunk, bewildered female friends back from parties and never take advantage once they’re at her door, for the guys who accompany girls to bars as buffers against the rest of the creepy male population, for the guys who know a girl is fishing for compliments but give them out anyway, for the guys who always play by the rules in a game where the rules favor cheaters, for the guys who are accredited as boyfriend material but somehow don’t end up being boyfriends, for all the nice guys who are overlooked, underestimated, and unappreciated, for all the nice guys who are manipulated, misled, and unjustly abandoned, this is for you.

This is for that time she left 40 urgent messages on your cell phone, and when you called her back, she spent three hours painstakingly dissecting two sentences her boyfriend said to her over dinner. And even though you thought her boyfriend was a chump and a jerk, you assured her that it was all ok and she shouldn’t worry about it. This is for that time she interrupted the best killing spree you’d ever orchestrated in GTA3 to rant about a rumor that romantically linked her and the guy she thinks is the most repulsive person in the world. And even though you thought it was immature and you had nothing against the guy, you paused the game for two hours and helped her concoct a counter-rumor to spread around the floor. This is also for that time she didn’t have a date, so after numerous vows that there was nothing “serious” between the two of you, she dragged you to a party where you knew nobody, the beer was awful, and she flirted shamelessly with you, justifying each fit of reckless teasing by announcing to everyone: “oh, but we’re just friends!” And even though you were invited purely as a symbolic warm body for her ego, you went anyways. Because you’re nice like that.

The nice guys don’t often get credit where credit is due. And perhaps more disturbing, the nice guys don’t seem to get laid as often as they should. And I wish I could logically explain this trend, but I can’t. From what I have observed on campus and what I have learned from talking to friends at other schools and in the workplace, the only conclusion I can form is that many girls are just illogical, manipulative bitches. Many of them claim they just want to date a nice guy, but when presented with such a specimen, they say irrational, confusing things such as “oh, he’s too nice to date” or “he would be a good boyfriend but he’s not for me” or “he already puts up with so much from me, I couldn’t possibly ask him out!” or the most frustrating of all: “no, it would ruin our friendship.” Yet, they continue to lament the lack of datable men in the world, and they expect their too-nice-to-date male friends to sympathize and apologize for the men that are jerks. Sorry, guys, girls like that are beyond my ability to fathom. I can’t figure out why the connection breaks down between what they say (I want a nice guy!) and what they do (I’m going to sleep with this complete ass now!). But one thing I can do, is say that the nice-guy-finishes-last phenomenon doesn’t last forever. There are definitely many girls who grow out of that train of thought and realize they should be dating the nice guys, not taking them for granted. The tricky part is finding those girls, and even trickier, finding the ones that are single.

So, until those girls are found, I propose a toast to all the nice guys. You know who you are, and I know you’re sick of hearing yourself described as ubiquitously nice. But the truth of the matter is, the world needs your patience in the department store, your holding open of doors, your party escorting services, your propensity to be a sucker for a pretty smile. For all the crazy, inane, absurd things you tolerate, for all the situations where you are the faceless, nameless hero, my accolades, my acknowledgement, and my gratitude go out to you. You do have credibility in this society, and your well deserved vindication is coming.

Fu-zu Jen, SEAS/WH, 2003

Give me Liberty or Give me death

2005-03-05T02:16:00.000-05:00

There some truths in what is spoken by men who have gone before us. Although situations and times are different some sentiments and spirits remain true. How this fire in my heart burns, and how helpless i feel.

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Pay! Pay! Pay!

2005-02-23T16:48:00.000-05:00

So the Straits Times Interactive (online edition for the ST) has decided that it now requires online users to pay to read it's articles. Compare this to the other newspapers around the world, BBC, Washington Post, New Straits Times, Jakarta Post, and others, this seems a strange move.

Well that means that overseas Singaporean like myself, who are not rich, will be deprived even of government stooge news. Exactly like the notion of elections for overseas Singaporeans, some Singaporeans are better than others. The government scholars I am sure will receive some sort of newsletter to keep them updated with home, but for the others, there will be nothing if we don't fork out the money. Many foreign governments worry about the influx of new immigrants and their divided loyalties, but no worries when it comes to Singaporean immigrants, our own home doesn't want us.

Recently I have been asked by several American friends if I would give up my citizenship for an American one, I told them no. I may accept permanent residency but not full out citizenship. Singapore is a place I have decided to call home. Yet the actions of our government linked companies leaves much to be desired.

Last summer at the Youth conference, the then Minister for Community Development and Sports talked alot about making Singaporeans feel that Singapore is home. Migration, he said, was inevitable, and there was nothing the PAP could do about it. He talked about creating a sense of home and belonging, yet each step of the way, I feel as if it only applies to Singaporeans on scholarship. There seems to be a growing caste amongst Singaporeans overseas, there are the so-called quitters who want nothing to do with home, the elite scholars, and the common folk who happen to be overseas for various reasons. We all know how the diatribe goes, and we all know who gets the red carpet treatment.

Sometimes though I pity the scholars who go overseas, they seem almost nannied, while I get to frolic free and taste the fruits of freedom. It seems that while their minds are chained, my mind is free to roam. In them is a parochial nationalism that seems almost forced and sometimes merely lip service. Also there are the brain washed zombies who I know of all too well. In myself I see a romantic nationalism. One that is born from conviction of purpose and love of home (minus the current PAP government). I see the flaws of my home and the merits, and in me is born a desire to change it. Yet too often I must be careful of what I say lest I may never return to my homeland.

So I count on you my other bloggers to keep me in touch with the place that I call home. In your accounts and reports, in your diatribes and criticism, I see glimpses of my homeland, my watan.

News from around the world 12 Jan 2005

2005-01-12T16:59:00.000-05:00

London
Creepy e-mail hoax: A British man admitted this week that he sent fake death announcements to the families of British tourists missing in the tsunami. Christopher Pierson, 40, said that he was looking at a bulletin board site where people were asking for information about their relatives when a “moment of madness” came over him. He sent at least 35 of the posters e-mails purportedly from the Foreign Office, saying the British government “regrets to inform you that the missing person you were inquiring about has been confirmed dead.” Pierson has been charged with “malicious communication” and creating a public nuisance. The British government said it would never inform anyone of a death by e-mail.

Voxleo: Talk about a sick, sad world we live in. That's disgusting. You'd think people would have a bit more sympathy.

Madrid
Basques want out: The parliament of Spain’s autonomous Basque province voted last week to hold a referendum on secession, only to be promptly rebuffed by the Spanish government. Basque Prime Minister Juan Jose Ibarretxe said that giving Basques the chance to vote on independence would end the long campaign of bombings and shootings by Basque separatists. But Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero said secession was against Spain’s constitution and was not an option. “This proposal, which has no legal basis, is going nowhere,” Zapatero said. “And Ibarretxe knows that.”

Voxleo: Sigh. More violence to come in Spain. Now they also have Muslim terrorists to worry about.

Kiev, Ukraine
Democratic triumph: An ebullient president-elect Viktor Yushchenko said this week that he would use his democratic mandate to stamp out corruption in Ukraine. “Ukrainians have been independent for 13 years,” he said, referring to the country’s break from the Soviet Union, “but now they are free.” The pro-Western Yushchenko was elected in a re-vote, after widespread fraud in the first vote prompted a month-long series of mass demonstrations, in what is being called the Orange Revolution. The government-backed candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, stepped down from his current post of prime minister, but said he would file a lawsuit contesting the legality of the re-vote.

Voxleo: I wonder if this was widely reported in Singapore. The masses forcing democracy to really work for them. If I were a MIW this news would send a shiver down my spine.

Phnom Penh
Cambodia spared: The former king of Cambodia took credit this week for protecting his country from the tsunami. Norodom Sihanouk, who gave the throne to his son last year because of poor health, said on his Web site that an astrologer came to the queen mother last month warning of an “ultracatastrophic cataclysm.” The former king said that he and his wife spent millions of dollars to ward off the evil by having religious ceremonies performed at temples around Cambodia. The tsunami engulfed neighboring Thailand but caused practically no damage in Cambodia. The royal family sent condolences to the countries affected.

Voxleo: Now of course we should take into account that Cambodia doesn't really have much of a sea front with the Indian Ocean. But then again who am I to say if the old king's prayers didn't hold the tsunami off. Maybe Old Man also made prayers to the various gods to keep Singapore out of harms way. Or maybe it's just because we're geographically lucky. Crazy royals.

Islamabad
Musharraf keeps uniform: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reneged on his pledge to step down as army chief of staff by the end of 2004. “Pakistan needs continuity of its internal and external policies, which can only be ensured if I stay as the army chief,” Musharraf said in a televised New Year’s Eve address. He said the war on terror and the conflict with India over Kashmir could only be managed if one person was making the political and military decisions. An opposition coalition of Islamic parties said it would hold mass rallies later this month to protest the move. “We cannot have diluted democracy,” said Makhdoom Amin Fahim, leader of the Pakistan People’s Party.

Voxleo: Yet another dictatorship waiting to happen. Why would anyone believe that a man who siezed power illegitmately would surrender it without worrying about repurcussions.

Khartoum, Sudan
Giving peace a chance: Sudan signed a peace agreement this week with rebel factions in the south, in the latest attempt to end a 22-year civil war. The war began in 1983, over oil rights, but morphed into a religious conflict pitting the Arab Muslim north, which controls the government and uses strict sharia law, against the Christian and animist south. Under the new power-sharing agreement, southern Sudan will be partly autonomous and field its own army. African diplomats were optimistic about the deal. “Africa begins the year 2005 on a very good footing,” said South African President Thabo Mbeki. “Let’s party!” But the peace agreement does not cover the bloody conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region, as that war involves different rebels.

Voxleo: Yay! Peace in one part of Sudan, maybe there'll be peace in Darfur too.

Kabul
Poppy crop conundrum: The Pentagon’s civilian and military officials are at odds over whether to destroy Afghanistan’s opium fields, the Financial Times reported this week. Civilian leaders agree with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who wants the heroin trade stopped before parliamentary elections. Karzai fears that warlords will use their heroin profits to influence the vote. But U.S. military leaders argue that disrupting the country’s main agricultural product would be even more destabilizing to the elections. “If you pull at the thread of counternarcotics the wrong way, because of the sheer proportion of the gross domestic product wrapped up in this business, you should be careful of unintended consequences,” said Gen. James Jones, the American commander of NATO.

Voxleo: America's war on drugs runs into its war on terror. Hmmmm... Tough call guys.

A reply to a critic

2005-01-03T03:18:00.000-05:00

So I received this comment from the Knight of Pentacles. Being a student of history, and having spent alot of time dealing with intellectual history, I think I see what sir Knight is talking about. Frist read it, and then allow me to reply:

I disagree with the article on so many points that I do not even know where to begin.

Apathy. That is why you are not going to get a complete and carefully crafted response from me. Most of my peer group do not care enough (or are not politically aware enough) to get off our candy asses chasing the mighty dollar and buying the newest toys.

In the context of improving our country, even before we look at reformers versus revolutionaries - does Singapore even have a critical mass of people who care enough to go beyond coffeshop mumbling and complaining?

Or maybe those who care (and can leave) - have left. Then we need to ask why. Instead of conveniently dissing them as 'quitters'.

Get your PhD in Public Works. Then perhaps our academic-obsessed rulers may choose to listen to you. Having the right family connections would not hurt either. I sense your desire to contribute to and improve Singapare - and I wish you well in your endeavour. It will be a long hard journey. And be careful of libel lawsuits that could bankrupt you.

As for the rest of us unqualified immobile serfs who are only fit to work the land and heed the edicts of our masters - we will continue to exist until we do not.

--
Posted by KnightofPentacles to Vox Leo - A Singaporean Voice at 1/1/2005 11:53:33 PM

I agree with Knight that most people of my generation are apathetic. I have no doubt about that.

I also see Knight's point on the critical mass issue. I suppose there are two schools of thought. One believes in individual exceptionalism and another in movement of the masses. I can argue that both actually work hand in hand. Indian independence was nothing more than an intellectual excercise before Gandhi took it to the next level. I will admit that I have few ideas on how to bring it to the masses with the current socio-political context. My only answer is the Anarchist answer, which is education. Hopefully we can stir the masses through education. And like the Anarchists I would argue that it would take a long time. Don't get me wrong, there are other aspects of the Anarchist creed (like the destruction of specialisation) that I find hard to follow.

I will say that I care enough, and I try my best. Being at a distance makes it difficult for me to do much.

Yes I will concede that our current ruling party is somewhat obsessed with experts. And yes I would argue that a PhD in Public Works is essential for road building and sewage management, but unfortunately my focus is in Public Policy Analysis. Slight difference.

As to the quitters issue, I will say that this is a personal issue with me. Quitting means giving up. If someone was forced into exile due to persecution (I won't name names), that's a different story. Leaving home and turning your back to it shows that you don't really care about "home." I believe in sticking things out. I may hate it, but I would stick it out and try to change it. Quitting is a sign of weakness and lack of committment. I served my NS even though I hated it, but I kept chugging on. I didn't run away or hid behind some other country's citizenship. I have little respect for draft dodgers and similiarly I have little respect for those who quit.

Also thanks to Knight for the warning on libel suits and the advice on family connections. I believe I know them all too well. Thanks for the heads up.

Funny how the Knight uses terms like serf and unqualified. Both the Chinese and Russian revolution built on the backs of unqualified immobile serfs. The American rebellion was fueled by farmers. Do not adopt the ruling party's attitude. In names lie the power. If we take the ruling party's argument that serf means to be weak, then we are bound to their power. Take the word serf and infuse in it "strong", for the people are the strength and lifeblood of the country. Gandhi's peaceful resistance hurt the British because the masses refused to follow British orders. Remember "animal farm" by George Orwell, the few cannot hope to control the many when the many decide to act against the few.

I believe that if we can have more frank discussion like these, the intellectual scene in Singapore can get more mature and exciting.

Surfing and Thinking

2005-01-01T14:54:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I decided to go and view the web after watching parts of the Rose Parade, live from Pasedena,CA, USA. Then at 5pm the Rose Bowl begins.

Anyway I was just reading the blogs of Singapore (heh, sort of like the Pirates of the Caribbean) and I came upon Mr McDermott's page, Singabloodypore, and read what he posted on New Year's Day (my time, 2 Jan SGT). And I found this really well written essay which I will reproduce here.

Our smart students not willing to think critically

I FIND it ironic that after decades of praising the education system for producing students who are adept at memorising formulas, a skill that has enabled them to be world beaters in international mathematics and science competitions, the Government now wants youths who are able to express their opinions about what sort of Singapore they want to build.

Unfortunately, as in the case of the bilingual policy, we cannot have our cake and eat it, a fact that has taken the Government some time to figure out.

The more we reward students for their ability to memorise model answers, the less willing students will be to use their critical minds. Why should they risk getting low grades by expressing critical, unorthodox views when it is so easy for them to just be spoon-fed by their teachers?

In his article, 'Lost generation or future leaders: Our call' (ST, Dec 30), Mr Verghese Matthews questions whether figures of authority have instilled in young people the critical spirit and the moral courage to use it for the good of society.

He is optimistic that there is hope yet for Singapore's future: 'I am confident that there are many young critical thinkers in our society who are testing the waters.'

I applaud Mr Matthews' attempt to bring into public discussion the question of whether enough is being done to encourage critical thinking among Singaporean youths, but alas his article has come two decades too late for my generation.

Having gone to a top secondary school and junior college, and now doing my undergraduate studies at a local university, I can safely say that there is an appalling lack of passionate, critical thinkers, even among the intellectual elite of Singapore's youth.

It is not that my generation does not have smart people with critical-thinking skills. The problem is that too many of my peers lack the moral courage to speak out after going through an education system that rewards conformity and punishes originality.

We have become a generation of sheep, too afraid to challenge the authority of our herders. The few wolves left among us who do challenge the status quo run the risk of being labelled as anarchists and troublemakers.

It is no wonder that many have become so jaded that they no longer feel it worth their while to carry on expressing their views, choosing instead to either remain quiet or to head for greener pastures elsewhere, in which case they run the risk of being labelled as 'quitters'.

In both cases, the ultimate loser is Singapore, for conformity results in stagnation, while 'invention is always born of dissension', as the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard so rightly pointed out.

In 1784, the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote his famous essay 'What is Enlightenment?' in which he appealed to his countrymen to have the courage and resolution to use their own reasoning skills instead of blindly depending on the authority of so-called experts. More than two centuries on and in a country far away from his beloved Prussia, his emotional appeal still remains relevant.

Sadly, the works of Kant seldom take pride of place on the bookshelves of many of our policy-makers, who would much rather fill their shelves with more 'practical' books, such as those by economist John Maynard Keynes.

The price Singapore is paying for their narrow reading habits is an entire generation of lost sheep: Gen S. My generation.

Jamie Han Li Chou

I do not necessarily agree with Jamie on some of the things that are brought up. I do think Jamie makes a valid point though.

First allow me to critique a little:

I do think that policy makers need a grounding in some theoretical philosophy, I personally prefer Rousseau and the Romantic movement, which some might say is a reaction against Enlightenment thinking. However I think Jamie is being unusually harsh to the policy makers. Being interested in getting a PhD in Public Policy myself, I've come to realise that a firm grounding in economics is extremely important to any policy maker. Keynes, Smith and the likes, were not soul-less bean counters. Smith afterall wrote during the Enlightenment period.

Practical books are neccessary for practical purposes. No point having a leader who can tell me about the Post-Modernist thinkers and not work out the economic impact of implementing a new education policy. I personally know some policy wonks, and I will say that they do have philosophical leanings and they can hold their ground against the cafe-variety intellectuals. But to quote my favorite policy wonk, Professor Tommy Koh, "I'm a Pragmatic Idealist." We can have ideals, but if we run with just our ideals, we will not be the men who builds a system that lasts longer than a lifetime. How many revolutions have failed because there was no structural development to the ideology?

Now allow me to back Jamie up:

Yes I think my generation is not dissimilar from the previous generations. We're coffeeshop rebels. Yes the shops may have changed from Yup Ho Lai to Starbucks, but we're merely coffeeshop rebels. SO the grumbling is kept to a mumbling level and people get on with life. That is the general feeling of my generation.

Of course we have the Cosmopolitants (as our good SM Goh called it), and they have seen the world outside and like to quote fantastic philosophers and use big theories to make a point to argue for change. But they're nothing more than cafe-variety intellectuals. I really loathe those kinds of people. Dropping big names and theories but have no practical way of bringing about reform or revolution.

We can speak out, but until we have some plan in place, speaking out does little. Furthermore we must adapt to local situations. Lenin took Marx and Russified it, and then Li Dachao and Mao took Lenin-Marxism and made it into a Chinese Communism, and eventually Maoism. Singaporeans will not rise up because Kant said so. It must revolve around local needs and wants. We must work with the latent mumblings and grumblings and nuture it to make it loud and productive.

Quiting is not an option either. I know too many of my friends who want to leave and go elsewhere. Singapore is not home for them. All I can say is good riddance to bad rubbish. Yes they may be my friends, but I have scant respect for quitters. I truly love my home. The place where my ancestors picked to settle in for commercial and religious reasons (yes we were Catholic before we left China). I feel a sense of connection and the urge to help reform the system.

I believe that any generation will produce leaders to reform the system. I think that my generation has barely begun flowering and maturing, but already we are hard at work debating and discussing. Granted that most blogs are about mundane and idiotic things, but there are a few that strive to create a lively debate. I know that most forums are full of the same people, but we keep on debating. I also believe that over the years there are more level-headed people joining the fray. The PAP bashers are still around, but there are also more pragmatic idealists out there who strive to change the system without necessarily being rabidly anti-establishment. Reformers versus Revolutionaries.

Well that's my New Year's spiel. Off to surf more and maybe add comments.

Have a wonderful 2005 and may the intellectual debates continue to flourish. For my part, I'll try to be more like Lu Xun and be the alarm clock to wake my fellow intellectuals up.

More top 10

2004-12-30T18:24:00.000-05:00

Top Hangout Searches
1. Wild Wild Wet
2. Sentosa
3. Cineleisure
4. National Library
5. Esplanade
6. Borders
7. Kinokuniya
8. Takashimaya
9. NTUC Chalets
10. Downtown East

Heh 2 bookstores(yay!), 1 cinema, 1 library (yay!)and a load of crap.

Top Current Event Searches
1. National Day Parade
2. Olympics 2004
3. Huang Na
4. Great Singapore Sale
5. FHM Bikini Heaven
6. Subaru Challenge
7. Sasser Worm
8. Singapore Fireworks Festival
9. ERS
10. Comex 2004

This passes for current event searches? Bikini heaven? GSS? Comex? Oh save our collective souls please.

Top TV Show Searches
1. Singapore Idol
2. American Idol
3. America's Next Top Model
4. The Champion
5. Amazing Race
6. Survivor
7. Summer Scent
8. NKF Charity Show
9. Miss Singapore Universe 2004
10. Charmed

Good to see one original Singapore show there (#8), the rest are all trash. Come to think of it #8 you're trash too. Sigh... Coupled with our current event searches, we are doomed.

Top People Searches
1. Paris Hilton
2. Sylvester Sim
3. Fiona Xie
4. Taufik Batisah
5. William Hung
6. Janet Jackson
7. Anita Mui
8. Carina Lau
9. Bae Yong Jun
10. Rebecca Loos

Oh God! Save me! Not a single important person on here! Does no one care about the scandal around Kofi Annan or that Bush got reelected? Or that Tom Daschle is in trouble? Or that the EU just changed it's Commission? Or that there was a big ruckus over the Italian candidate for the Justice Commissioner job? Or that half of Bush's cabinet is gone? Sigh...

Top Queries by Month
January Anita Mui
February Janet Jackson
March Miss Singapore Universe 2004
April Miss Singapore Universe 2004
May Valuair
June Wild Wild Wet
July Singapore Pools
August Singapore Idol
September Tiger Airways
October Singapore Idol
November Singapore Idol

Sigh...

A reply to Xeno Boy

2004-12-30T14:08:00.000-05:00

Recently Xeno Boy posted an article on the SDP, and here's my reply that I posted on his site:

Dear Xeno Boy, i think the accusations that can be levelled against the SDP is that they play too much to a foreign audience.

Dr Chee and his gang tend to travel alot more and go about seeking support from foreign left wing parties. He basically panders to the foreign press and dances for the peanut gallery.

In my opinion I think the Workers' Party does a better job of holding down the local scene and really trying to get things done. They don't necessarily pander to any foreign press and they don't go out often. I also see them more often than I see SDP folk, which leads me to the conclusion that the SDP may only be as useful as a minor party sniping at the edges. It has not proved to me that it can become a government, like the WP. Somewhat like the Liberal Democrats in the old days before the Tories started sucking like hell.

That said I think the National Solidarity Party can recover from its leader's failings and move on up the scale of importance in Singapore's Opposition scene. They are possibly the most hard working, most motivated party i've ever seen in Singapore. They do walkabouts even in non-election years. They're building a solid foundation for becoming a good party.

The SDP has failed in my opinion and learning from the best elsewhere does little if not properly applied. I can learn from the best teachers, but if I don't act on what I learn, I'm as good as toast. Furthermore the Swedes have a longer tradition of democracy, what we don't need is some ultra-left party in Singapore urging for full democracy at once. Too unbalancing. I subscribe to the slow and steady approach of moving towards freedom.

I'm not a revolutionary, but a reformer.

New Singapore Blog

2004-12-30T12:45:00.000-05:00

Yay! One more. Added into the blog section, but for all you lazy kids it's http://singaporeherald.blogspot.com/

Short Shorts 27 Dec 2004

2004-12-27T12:59:00.000-05:00

Toronto

Gay marriage wins: Canada’s Supreme Court ruled this week that gay marriage did not violate the country’s constitution, clearing the way for legislators who want to make it legal nationwide. Gwendolyn Landolt of Real Women of Canada, a conservative group, said voters would throw liberals out of power if they went ahead with their plans. But polls say Canadians overwhelmingly support gay marriage. While 11 American states recently banned the same-sex unions, courts in six of Canada’s 10 provinces have ruled that outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional. “It’s hard to believe,” said Toronto lawyer Douglas Elliott, “that just a river separates us from the United States.”

Voxleo: So it seems like Canada and the US are worlds apart when it comes to recognition of gay rights. Don't get me wrong, I personally am not a fan of the gay lifestyle, but I think gays should be accorded the full protection of the law and also from each other. If "normal" couples can get into huge ugly divorces, so can gays, and we all know the only people who stand to profit are those dirty lawyers.

Unalaska Island, Alaska

Disaster at sea: Alaskan rescuers this week stopped searching for six shipwrecked sailors who were pitched into icy waters when a helicopter crashed trying to save them. The men had been aboard the Malaysian freighter Selendang Ayu, which ran aground and split in two off Unalaska Island, in the Bering Sea. The Coast Guard helicopter crew survived, and 20 other sailors were rescued. At least 40,000 gallons of the 738-foot vessel’s 500,000 gallons of oil and fuel quickly leaked out near a wildlife refuge full of endangered sea lions and birds. Salvage crews battled violent seas trying to contain the spill, which threatened to become the worst in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez lost 11 million gallons, in 1989.

Voxleo: The Malaysians got into some trouble. A pity 6 lives had to be lost.

Vienna

U.S. spied on IAEA: The Bush administration intercepted telephone calls from the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency to Iranian diplomats, The Washington Post reported this week. Administration officials are combing transcripts of the calls to look for evidence of wrongdoing by Mohamed ElBaradei, secretary-general of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the paper said, quoting unnamed administration sources. The Bush administration has been critical of ElBaradei since he questioned American evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program; now some officials suspect that he is coddling Iran. The IAEA took the reports of spying in stride. “We’ve always assumed that this kind of thing goes on,” IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. “We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality.”

Voxleo: What's suprising is not that the US government spied on the IAEA (not a big deal really), but rather that a US newspaper reported it. Talk about free press. Too often the Singaporean government's excuse for not allowing a free press is that it might stir up racial hatred and such. Yet in a multi-racial country like the US, where desegregation is still ongoing, newspapers are allowed to go on and on about anything they want. I've had flyers from right wing Christian groups, to having to endure left wing anti-war protesters outside of my room. Talk about free speech and free press. Too bad out Straits Times, or should i say Straight Jacket, would most probably spy for the government, and not be a whistle blower.

Tokyo

Bogus bones: Japan threatened economic sanctions against North Korea this week after the totalitarian country tried to pass off random bones and ashes as the remains of a Japanese prisoner. The North Korean government kidnapped Megumi Yokota in 1977, when she was 13, and used her as a language instructor for North Korean spies. In what was supposed to be a goodwill gesture, the regime presented Japanese diplomats last week with a box of remains said to be those of Yokota, but tests showed they belonged to several different people. The Japanese, who venerate their dead, were appalled. “We are so stunned at this development,” said Tokyo’s Asahi Shimbun in an editorial, “that we cannot adequately express our indignation.”

Voxleo: North Korea is up to its old tricks again. C'mon guys, play fair and nice. I really don't need a flare up in the neighbourhood.

Kampala, Uganda

U.S. AIDS drug flawed: The National Institutes of Health admitted this week that it withheld potentially damaging results of research into an AIDS drug that the U.S. donated to Africa. In 2002, President Bush announced a $500 million program to provide African countries with stocks of nevirapine, a drug that helps prevent the transmission of HIV from mothers to babies during birth. Since then, thousands of African women have received the drug. But the NIH did not tell the White House that some of its research, particularly a study in Uganda, suggested a high level of adverse, even lethal, reactions to the drug. African doctors shrugged off the news, saying the drug had already saved thousands of lives. “What you may call a serious side effect in the U.S. is not a serious side effect in Kampala,” said Francis Mmiro, a lead doctor in the Uganda study.

Voxleo: To all those bleeding left wingers out there, read what the good doctor said. Sometimes by being a compassionate left-winger we forget that flawed solutions are better than no solutions. Sure the drugs have flaws, but it saves lots of lives too. Think about that the next time you get the urge to go wave a banner.

General Santos, Philippines

Christmas market horror: A bomb exploded in an outdoor market in the southern Philippines last week, killing at least 15 people and wounding dozens. The market, in the city of General Santos, was especially crowded because extra kiosks selling Christmas ornaments and gifts had just been set up. No group claimed responsibility for the blast, but Islamic and communist separatist rebels have attacked in the region before. The Philippines has been an active ally in the U.S. war on terror, sharing intelligence and troops and allowing U.S. forces to use its territory. Christmas is a major holiday in the mostly Catholic country.

Voxleo: Isn't it nice that Singapore foils such plans, maybe the ISD isn't so bad afterall. Then again we don't need to hold people without trial indefinetely, especially if they're terrorists.

The origins of Santa Claus

2004-12-27T12:57:00.000-05:00

The origins of Santa Claus

12/24/2004
The origins of Santa Claus
Santa Claus is the most widely recognized figure in the Western world. How did he come to be so beloved?

Where did Santa come from?
The Middle East. The original Santa Claus was St. Nicholas, an early Christian bishop who was born in 270, in what is now Turkey. His parents died when he was young, leaving him a fortune. After he became bishop of Myra, he gave away his riches, freely but anonymously. In perhaps his best-known act of kindness, he secretly tossed bags of gold through a poor family’s window, to provide dowries so the household’s three daughters could find husbands instead of being sold into slavery. At least one of the bags landed in a stocking hung up to dry by the fireplace, which is why children still hang up stockings on Christmas Eve to be filled with gifts.

How did he become such an icon?
Despite his efforts at anonymity, Nicholas soon became famous for his kindness and generosity—especially toward the young. When he died, on Dec. 6, 343, he was declared a saint by popular demand. Early admirers, mainly children, celebrated the anniversary of his passing by leaving out gifts for his white horse before they went to bed on Dec. 5. When they woke up, they were rewarded with sweets that the kindly saint had left behind.

How did his fame spread west?
Sailors carried stories about St. Nicholas over the Mediterranean Sea to distant lands. In 1087, an expedition set out from Italy to find the saint’s bones and bring them back to be enshrined in a church in a town called Bari, where they rest to this day. Two centuries later, crusaders on their way back from the Holy Land visited Bari. They returned to homes all over Europe telling tales of the life and miracles of St. Nicholas.

What did Nicholas have to do with Christmas?
Initially, nothing. For centuries, his life was celebrated on Dec. 6, the anniversary of his death and his official Roman Catholic feast day. But after the Reformation, the Protestants said that Christmas celebrations, which included pagan traditions of exchanging gifts and raucous merrymaking, exhibited “an extraeme forgetfulnesse of Christ, giving liberty to carnall and sensual delights.” The English Parliament banned Christmas observances in 1644, and the Puritans in Massachusetts did the same. Christmas devotees kept the holiday alive by celebrating the feast of St. Nicholas instead, and over time, the two celebrations merged.

How did St. Nick become Santa?
That was an American innovation. Early Dutch settlers of New York called the holiday hero Sint Herr Nikolaas, later shortened to Sinterklaas. The name morphed into Santa Claus over the 17th and 18th centuries. Back then, Santa looked a little different. He was often depicted as a gaunt old-timer, like the English Father Christmas, who is believed to have been modeled after a pagan spirit who wore holly sprigs in his white hair. The American Santa wore traditional bishop’s garb—a pointed hat, or miter, and a staff hooked at the top like a shepherd’s crook (hence the shape of the peppermint candy canes that we have at Christmas).

Was Santa always big in America?
No. After the Puritans nearly did him in, it took an organized effort to restore his popularity. In the early 19th century, a small number of influential New Yorkers rekindled interest in St. Nicholas, as the focal point of a wholesome, home-centered tradition quite unlike the rowdy, pagan celebrations of old. They declared Nicholas the patron saint of their city. In 1809, Washington Irving wrote a history of New York in which he introduced “Sinter Klaas” to America as a kindly saint who arrived at people’s homes on horseback on the eve of his feast day.

When did Santa get his reindeer?
The image of St. Nick as “a jolly old elf” towed around by flying reindeer really began taking shape in 1822, with the poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas”—also known by its opening line, “’Twas the night before Christmas.” It was written by Clement Moore (a biblical studies professor) for his children. Forty years later, political cartoonist Thomas Nast refined Santa’s image with a series of drawings in Harper’s Weekly. Nast’s Santa dropped the bishop’s garb, and wore instead a brown coat trimmed with white fur. He also got a new address: Nast depicted St. Nick sitting on a box marked “Christmas box 1882, St. Nicholas, North Pole.”

Did Santa always bring children gifts?
Yes, but nothing like the loot kids expect these days. Centuries ago, children awoke to find nuts, sweets, and maybe clay figurines in their stockings. Sometimes the toes of their stockings would be filled with an orange, which represented the gold that St. Nicholas gave the poor. But in the late 19th century, merchants started looking for a way to get rid of their inventory at the end of the year. In 1867, Macy’s department store in New York City broke sales records by staying open late on Christmas Eve, and in the 1870s, it lured even more shoppers with elaborate Christmas window displays, and by bringing Santa Claus, alive and in person, into the store. Santa’s commercialization had begun.

Where did Santa get his red suit?
That is a controversial issue. “The jolly old St. Nick we know from countless images did not come from Western European folklore,” James Twitchell wrote in Adcult USA: The Triumph of Advertising in American Culture. “He came from yearly advertisements of the Coca-Cola Co.” In 1931, Coke hired a Swedish illustrator named Haddon Sundblom to draw a series of Santas for an ad campaign to boost sales of its soft drink in winter. Sundblom chose as his model a portly retired Coke salesman and dressed him in the company colors—red and white. But according to Gerry Bowler, author of The World Encyclopedia of Christmas, the image of a plump Santa decked out in red was already quite common before the 1930s. “What those Coke ads do,” he says, “is just put the final touch on it.”

So who’s Kriss Kringle?
Kriss Kringle is another foreign Christmas character whose name was twisted to suit the American tongue. German immigrants taught their children that it wasn’t St. Nicholas who brought them gifts, but the Christ child, or Christkindl. The child was often accompanied by an elfin helper, known in some places as Pelznickel, or “Nicholas with fur.” Adults in the German communities of Pennsylvania, where the tradition was strong, dressed up as Pelznickel by donning furry disguises and false beards. This memorable character visited before bedtime, whereas Christkindl only arrived to leave gifts while the children were sleeping. Since the recipients never saw their real benefactor, Kriss Kringle (as the name came to be pronounced) became confused with his whiskery assistant—and eventually with the gift-bearing Santa Claus.

Hot off the Press

2004-12-02T02:56:00.000-05:00

Hello brudders and sistas,

Sorry. I have been really busy lately and I have neglected my friends and comrades. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Too make it up I have news hot off the press from my buddy who was approached to do this. Our beloved ST wants to do series where young people write for other young people. Yup. So I wonder what ideas will get axed and what will stay in. My fly on the wall will be updating me and see which of his ideas will kena axed and which will stay. Let me know what ideas you have for articles and I'll bounce it off my pal.

Also another interesting thing, Psychologists have tested and proven that women are faster drivers. Yes you heard it right, women are faster drivers. This proves that women are the lousy drivers we always suspected them to be. You hear that? That's half my audience walking out. Anyway, the tests also porve that men are the more aggressive drivers of the sexes. So that also proves what every women thought about men: we're bad drivers. Let's put two and two together... Women are bad drivers and men are bad drivers... So... That means we're all likely to get into a car accident some time in our life. STAY AWAY FROM YOUR CAR!

Ha Ha... Yup... Sorry for not replying. It's not that the police came knocking on my door (I successfully snuck in and out of Singapore last week), but I've just been so busy with work. Sigh... Makes you want to get in your car and drive.

Ok folks. Will keep giving you juicy updates.

Reason why Kerry should not be President

2004-10-16T14:54:00.000-04:00

Seriously, bilateral talks in North Korea would screw all of us in Southeast Asia over.

Political Donations

2004-09-28T01:59:00.000-04:00

Yeah. So I found this great site. It actually shows the political donations throughout the US. Check it out.

Political Donation Map of Saint Louis

Old News

2004-09-27T01:57:00.000-04:00

The Missouri primary

Yeah it's old, but it sheds some light on the Missouri local races.

Yup. How Kerry can try to bounce back

2004-09-27T01:52:00.000-04:00

The comeback Kerry
: "The comeback Kerry"

More on Bambang

2004-09-27T01:47:00.000-04:00

Enter a new star

So Indonesia will have a new president

2004-09-27T01:45:00.000-04:00

Economist.com | Indonesia�s presidential election

Yup. Indonesia will most probably have a new president. Hopefully Bambang will bring a breath of fresh air to Indonesian politics and steer Indonesia away from the communal violence and economic slump that it is in. Here's to Indonesia, our next door neighbour and esteemed friend in ASEAN. Free elections! Yay!

Federer for Congress

2004-09-27T01:40:00.000-04:00

Federer for Congress

And this is of Bill Federer, the rival to Russ Carnahan. Bill has run against Gephardt before and it seems is well known in Saint Louis and also the broader Republican world. Read more about him too.

Russ Carnahan - Congress 2004

2004-09-27T01:38:00.000-04:00

Russ Carnahan - Congress 2004

Yup. This is the scion of the late Mel Carnahan and Former Sen. Jean Carnahan. He's running for Dick's old seat (3rd Missouri Congressional District). He's a Democrat, but I want to give all a fair coverage of the local Saint Louis race.

My two cents

2004-09-21T01:29:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I've been busy with school, but here's some reading material that'll be good for all of you...

War on Evil
Business as usual at the UN
Transhumanism
Free Money
Undermining Freewill
Spreading Democracy
Religious Intolerance
Hating America

These are from Foreign Policy Magazine and they're really good. They give a good view on these ideas, and FP touts these at the World's Most Dangerous Ideas.

Here's something for all you Bush haters out there (also from FP).

Why not all NGOs are your friend. This is something that I have always strongly believed. NGOs are lobby groups and they represent interests, so they're going to twist the truth to suit their goals. Also many of them are filled with liberal college kids, who have nothing better to do with their time. So they rail at everything in sight. Be very careful with what you read, this piece included, everyone has an agenda. Even our good old Singaporean opposition.

Something to shed some light on all the liberal crying that the dirt poor go to fight wars in the US. It isn't the dirt poor, it's the lower middle class. The class that everyone forgot about.

Notice some trends in American history, Bush isn't the first and he won't be the last.

A good article on the current world situation.

Ok that's it for now. I'll be updating in a few days I think.

Sorry

2004-09-11T11:00:00.000-04:00

Sorry that I haven't been posting regularly. I just got back to school and am trying to get back in the groove of things. I've also been involved with preparing for the Presidential Debates that are coming here. Well it turns out that Bush might cancel the Saint Louis leg of the debates, so I guess we're stuck with Michael Moore (the media whore), and Rock the Vote (yay! MTV!).

I must say that the College Republicans definitely have hotter women than the College Democrats. Women aside, I am hoping the debates come so we can get to hear Bush and Kerry at the same time. Also I'm looking forward to the 3rd Congressional district debates between the Libertarians, the Democrats and the Republicans. That's Dick Gephardt's old seat. It'll be a good race.

On other fronts, 2 French journalists have been kidnapped. So it proves that it doesn't matter whether you supported the war or not, fanatics are still going to blow stuff up and kidnap your citizens.

So race is still important in Singapore? That shouldn't come as a surprise. Even in countries older than ours, race is an essential part of identity. I think it is only natural to put race slightly before nationality. Race for the minority is a way to effectively preserve ones culture, while for the majority it is a way to provide a sense of security when trying to accommodate the minority races. Seriously, I think culture plays a bigger role than race. Furthermore it depends on the context. Between a Hong Kong Chinese, Taiwan Chinese, China Chinese and a Singapore Chinese, the cultural differences can be quite obvious. I would argue that I probably have more affinity with my Malay Singaporean friend than with say a Hong Konger. Singaporean culture (that's another kettle of fish) trumps so-called Chinese culture. Let's be honest folks, culture is ever changing and our Chinese culture has departed from other Chinese cultures.

James Gomez has some interesting things to say about overseas Singaporeans and online political activities. They make interesting reads about what the Workers' Party exco member thinks.

Well that's it for now. I'll keep you all updated on the going ons of the election from the ground. This is really an exciting place to be in, since Missouri is a swing state and the most important one too, because it holds the most electoral college seats for a swing state (11).

Sorry for not posting much. But I promise it'll be more regular from now on.

Quick tidbits

2004-08-25T12:20:00.000-04:00

Taken from the Economist's country briefing.

Idle thoughts
Singapore is full of foreign workers, the bulk of whom are low-paid cleaners, hefters and builders. The city-state is also home to growing numbers of its own long-term jobless—mostly older, less-educated citizens who can’t find a slot that fits their skills.
The situation has sparked alarm at the National Trades Union Congress, which has close ties to the long-ruling People’s Action Party. A series of senior officials, including Lim Boon Heng, the head of the union congress, have spoken up saying they want the rules tweaked so the authorities stand a better chance of defeating structural unemployment. “I think we can do something about it. Otherwise, [Singaporeans] will remain unemployed, and somebody will have to look after them,” Mr Lim said. Another union official even suggested that the state could give its jobless citizens a share of its clean-up duties, paying them a few hundred dollars a month.

Rebel yell
It’s not something that you’d expect from a People’s Action Party stalwart, but Khaw Boon Wan, the health minister, wants the city-state’s straight-laced youth to be a bit more of a rabble. Singapore is famed for its nanny-ish rules, and young people here are not known for kicking up a fuss. That has Mr Khaw worried.
“I would prefer your generation to be rebellious,” Mr Khaw told a group of students, according to a local paper. “If you are just conforming to the social norms, then you are merely following our footpath, which may not be relevant to you.” The official line is that to continue to prosper, Singapore needs innovative mavericks. So government ministers have started to sow a bit of rebellion. But it is unclear whether Singapore’s obedient youth will do as they’re told.

Changes

2004-08-25T01:33:00.000-04:00

So much change has been in the offing. The school curriculum is to be shortened; lucky for those kids (going into my grumbling old man mode). Chinese is to be simplified; lucky for those ACS boys. Yup on the education front, it seems a lot has been relaxed by the new PM. But I don't see how just learning oral aspects of Chinese will lead to better Chinese standards all around. I hated Chinese while I was in secondary school, but looking back it was all the drilling that made me a better Chinese speaker. Are we going to have a generation of students who can read only and not write (Chinese-ROM)? So how come we don't have the same option for Malay and Tamil? Strange indeed.

On the upside, rules for public speaking have been relaxed. Which means maybe we can organise a big powwow and decide on the work that needs to be done to fix Singapore. But we must be careful that this is not a "hundred flowers" speech, which will soon turn into a round of purges.

And of course our own Brainwash Times has to have an article showing that not all young people are skeptical.

In the international arena, PM Lee warned Taiwan not to monkey around when it comes to China. Finally, we've stated our position on the trouble makers. Seriously, just go back to China. We don't need a war.

So with all the hurrah from the Zombie Times, I feel we need a little view from the other side of the tracks.

So the future sounds good, but we've got to see if it's all lip service, or if it truly is a change for the better.

Sunny Somewhere

2004-08-17T05:35:00.000-04:00

Hello from sunny somewhere. I'm not going to tell you where I'm at, just know I'm not in a cold, dark place. On holiday enjoying the sun, so I have not been catching up much on the news. Although the Olympics is everywhere. Good to know that Singapore is advancing in badminton and table tennis. Checking out some of the Olympians. I'd just like to say that the Australian Softball team is quite good looking. Yummy... Also the weight lifting was interesting. China won both gold and silver in the 62kg area (I think). Thailand also won a medal, good for them.

It's quite a Singapore week in the Economist, so I thought you might like to read some of it. This one's about Philip Yeo, A*Star and EDB. This one's about Temasek and Ho Ching.

Here's something not related to Singapore, but related to the human race. It proves that both the Social Darwainists and Kropotkin were half-way right. It's always bothered me that man is selfish, yet has an altruistic streak. But it turns out that we have both and that's what makes us superior to other species (I'm a speciesist).

Something interesting written in Today today (I wanted to say that).

Ok that's it. For now. I'm still on holiday, so I'll catch up later. Just a heads up. The LKY school of Public Policy is now open for business. Until it builds a brand name, I'm off to the JFK School of Government. Maybe I'll get and exchange program and come back here as a "visiting scholar," with perks and all.

2004-08-13T12:55:00.000-04:00

I'm going to avoid putting too much links to the whole handover thing (it's been done to death on TV and newspapers), but I will make a few comments.

Well, PM Lee made a fine speech last night about being inclusive and such. I wonder what he meant when he said that Singapore should allow space for people to be "different." Did he mean to encourage entrepreneurship, or was he hinting at tolerance towards single parent families and GLBT lifestyles?

Anyway just one day into the handover and our neighbors are already asking so many questions. On a slightly less complaining tone, here's an editorial by the NST on the handover reaffirming our old friendship. More stories on Mrs Lee Hsien Loong (also known as Ho Ching) by our Malaysian friends.

Here's an article about how our youths don't know who the new PM is (psst... Lee Hsien Loong) and I think this is the malaise I'm trying to get rid of. My girlfriend also said the same thing to me last night, about how it didn't matter who took over. She was far more interested in Average Joe than in watching the handover. Sigh...

The Star had a good article about the challenges that faced PM Lee and his new old team. And there's a good line in there that sort of reflects my thinking:

Nothing is permanent. My generation will be the last to grow up so
self-assured about the future. My sons generation must be prepared to work
outside of Singapore, said a middle-aged man who lost his job in a
multi-national firm several years ago.

I was at a Singapore International Foundation recently and this guy asked a question about how to keep Singaporeans in Singapore. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim went on to say that we can't keep them here, but create a sense of rootedness, so Singapore is always home. He went on to mention that his brother is overseas, but still identifies with Singapore. I too feel this way about Singapore. I may have to work overseas, but Singapore is where I identify with. Everyone keeps saying that overseas is good, but if you look carefully there's implicit racism overseas and there are invisible barriers. I should know, I'm living overseas.

Ok, talkingcock is still down. Yup. The system in down. Talking about downed systems, a new variant of the blaster worm is at work. Run... Hide... Be very afraid...

Also talking about systems down, everyone should visit http://www.engrish.com, for some really funny s*%t.

Back to PM Lee's speech (getting used to PM Lee again, after a 14 year break)... He also mentioned about education going beyond just training for jobs, but truly to explore and learn. Of course we all know that the current education system was created by Mr Goh Keng Swee. But different times call for different measures, and it is heartening to see that at least they're sort of in touch with reality.

Well that's it for now. Catch all of you soon. This may be my last post for a long while, so don't fret if you see nothing. I'm just on holiday.

More reasons why Kerry should not be President

2004-08-13T11:50:00.000-04:00

Just take a look at this cartoon.

Another funny poltical picture

2004-08-13T11:15:00.000-04:00

I'd like to thank Larry Wright (the creator) for allowing me to show it. It means alot to me. Thanks Larry.

Breastfeeding issues

2004-08-12T15:50:00.000-04:00

Here's one for all those breast feeding mothers out there, I feel your pain...

A funny picture

2004-08-12T14:36:00.000-04:00

Why I support George Bush

2004-08-12T12:05:00.000-04:00

You may be wondering why I support G.W. Bush when it's got not much to do with me. Well, I've lived in the US for 3 year now and I've made friends with many Democrats and Republicans (actually more Democrats than Republicans), and I actually agree with the Democrats on many issues, but deep down inside I think some Democrats are bigger hypocrites than Republicans (all politicians are hypocrites by the way). Especially so with John Forbes Kerry and his wife.

If it was John Edwards who had won the primaries, I'd actually have to plump for him and campaign for Edwards. But since it's Kerry, the Boston Brahmin, I'm all for Bush, the Texan Goofball.

Just check out this cartoon to know exactly why I dislike Kerry so much.

Yes, Bush is a child of privileged like Kerry, but at least he is honest about it and doesn't go around pretending he's the everyday guy. I mean in mannerism, Bush is so much more like the everyday dolt you meet on the street, while Kerry comes across as some sort of preppy boy who sits in his lounge all day talking and doing nothing. I want a do-er not s talker.

So unless Kerry dies before November and Edwards moves up the ticket, I'm going to be rooting for Bush. Sorry.

My Pro-Republican Spiel

2004-08-12T11:45:00.000-04:00

So some news on the American race...

How Kerry did immediately after the Democratic party's National Convention. (So - so)

Some funny quotes on the campaign trail:

Femme du peuple (contd)
“You could tell she wasn't familiar with the menu.”
A Wendy's manager on Teresa Heinz Kerry's visit to his ketchup-infested
joint with her husband. The Edwards couple knew exactly what they wanted. The
New York Post claimed that the Kerrys had sneaked in “fancy food” to eat
secretly on their campaign bus after undergoing the ordeal, August
4th

Witty Wisconsin
“They want four more years of hell.”
Mrs Kerry responding to Bushite chants of “Four more years” at a Wisconsin
rally. CBS Morning News, August 3rd

It's like the Beatles
“If the proceeds from my songs go to the Democratic National Convention, I'll be
worked up.”
A Republican member of John Kerry's school band on the rerelease
of their album. New York Daily News, August 2nd

Swan?
“Like the ugly duckling”
Mr Kerry on how he felt standing next to John Edwards and Ben
Affleck, a movie star. Los Angeles Times, August 2nd

Here's a game which might be fun for some of you, but it costs US$29.95, and it's a seasonal thing.

Some interesting stuff from Democrats who back Bush.

The grassroots site for getting Bush reelected.

A campaign blog in favour of Bush.

And the grand daddy of Pro-Bush blogs.

For some reason the official site is down, is there's nothing I can do about that (I'm suspecting Democrat hackers).

Some fun games about J.F. Kerry (how he loves to point out that it's like J.F. Kennedy, get real, Kerry's not Kennedy):

Spendometer

Kerryopoly

Kerry vs Kerry

All courtesy of the Grand Old Party.

Overdrive

2004-08-12T11:18:00.000-04:00

Ok, so the Lee Hsien Loong PR campaign is in overdrive. I know he came from Cat. High. That's my old school and we have his picture up along with all the other President's Scholars we've produced over the years (not surprisingly hsien yang is also up there). I'm a legacy, or so the Americans would call it. My dad went to Cat High and was deeply influenced by his time there. And so it was with me.

If a school would determine what kind of person you'd turn out to be, I'd say LHL would be much like most of the other Cat. High boys. Well he was probably one of the S class boys (SAP). I mean us E class boys were always rowdy, less conformist, and definitely knew how to have fun and get in trouble. I imagine LHL to be one of the goody-two-shoes S class boys, who were mischievous now and then (all boys are), but generally laid low and gave no trouble. Ah... I remember those days... Do not ever wash your hands with the "soap" from the soap dispensers at the Secondary school side. There used to be a tradition of pissing into the thing.

The BBC gives its own take on things. Interestingly enough the Harvard Club speech was one on increasing the role of civil society which J. Gomez touches on (see below). Also the Harvard Club is coming up with a book on their many years of involvement as a civil society actor. This I heard from a reliable source (the editor of the book).

Indonesia also weighs in on the handover in Singapore, and just like the Malaysians, they think we'll get along just fine. It seems LHL has been on a charm offensive, maybe there's a side to him that we're not seeing (must fight brain washing... Ugh...). But there is a good phrase that must be quoted:

However, in spite of its successes in creating a developed and modern society,
Lee himself can take a few lessons from Indonesia in developing a more
politically open system. Fate will intervene, and at some juncture Singapore
will have to undergo its own transformation whether billed as reform or
revolution.

Maybe we really could learn a few tricks form the more democratic Indonesia, just as the author mentioned they could learn from us. Talk about creating an ASEAN Cultural Community.

The Economist (if you haven't figured by now, my favorite newspaper) also has a few things to say about the handover.

James Gomez has produced two interesting articles (one by him and another by David M. Jones) on the Singaporean "democracy" and Singapore as "home."

On the Taiwan - China issue, the Taiwanese have begun either a scare campaign or have realized that they're in deep s*^t when it come to war with China. Also beware the rise of a new Imperial Japan. Don't think just because they make great anime and have interesting fashion sense (plus good milk tea), they won't rise again to fight a war. Between China and Japan, I don't know if Southeast Asia will survive. Remember that the land of the Rising Sun is also the land of the soiled school girl panties (banned because they're unsanitary and not because it is somewhat perverted) and chopped off heads (which the Japanese denied ever happened in Nanjing).

China has pooh poohed the idea that Taiwan's 12th attempt into being admitted into the UN would succeed. When Red China was excluded of the UN, it never really tried as hard as Blue China is today.

In Indonesia, there is a changing attitude towards Indonesians of Chinese descent. There was a time when they were held in suspect for uncertain loyalties towards Indonesia, but with the peaceful rise of China, and the Indon Chinese showing much more pride in their home, I think it is safe to say that the issue of being Chinese will slowly fade away.

Oh by the way, several countries are having their National Day too. Malaysia's will be on the 31 August. Indonesia' on the 17 August. Pakistan's on the 14 August and India's on the 15 August. August is a good month for independence.

Talk of the town

2004-08-11T13:52:00.000-04:00

So everyone's in a flurry over the handover, the new cabinet, fond farewells to Mr Goh Chock Tong. Forums are full of debate on the new PM and how the "New" Team is actually the Old Team. Well, a few new faces, and alot more minorities promoted to political/parliamentary secretaries.

But here's some news about ASEAN from our neighbours in Indonesia. Yup. ASEAN was Mr Goh's focus, especially Indonesia.

Also news from our Malaysian brothers about the furture of Malaysia - Singapore ties. And also the Malaysian perpective on the handover can be found here.

Asia Times has come up with a scathing attack on the handover, so watch out lawsuit.

Well that's the low down of the handover for today. we'll see what else may pop up over the next few days.

2 women MOS, that's a new one,I guess the Dragon King gave in to pressure and included some women to look like we really are a progressive society.

Hot off the presses

2004-08-11T04:43:00.000-04:00

So PM Lee has named his new cabinet. And here it is (drum roll):

Lee Hsien Loong - Prime Minister and Finance Minister

Goh Chock Tong - Senior Minister and Chairman of the MAS

Lee Kuan Yew - Minister Mentor (MM Lee)

Dr. Tony Tan - DPM and Coordinating Minister for Security and Defense until 30 June 2005

Prof. S. Jayakumar - DPM and Law Minister

Lim Boon Heng - Minister in the PMO

Lim Swee Say - Minister in the PMO

Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim - Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR)

BG George Yeo - Minister for Foreign Affairs

Lim Hng Kiang - Minister for Trade and Industry

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan - Minister for Community Development and Sport

Tharman Shanmugaratnam - Minister for Education

Khaw Boon Wan - Minister for Health

Dr Ng Eng Hen - Minister for Manpower

Wong Kan Seng - Home Affairs Minister and DPM after 30 June 2005

RAdm Teo Chee Hean - Defense Minister

Yeo Cheow Tong - Transport Minister

Dr Lee Boon Yang - MITA

Mah Bow Tan - Minister for National Development

Lee Yock Suan has been dropped from the cabinet lists.

Also 2 women have been included as Ministers of State, Lim Hwee Hua (MOF and MOT) and Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (MCDS)

Some new faces include Othman Haron Eusofe (Minister of State, PMO), Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Minister of State, MFA), Heng Chee How (Minister of State, MTI), and Dr Amy Khor (Mayor, South West CDC).

Full list can be found here.

Missed this

2004-08-11T03:22:00.000-04:00

I missed this at the Straits Times webpage. It's actually quite funny.

The Chope-ing phenomena is quite interesting. Never seen tissue packets used before until recently when I went to meet some friends, who work at Shenton Way, for lunch at Lau Pa Sat.

It always surprises me that no one makes way for Ambulances. In the US, both sides of the road pull over just in case. I am so amazed at the lack of responsiveness in Singaporean drivers.

Think Singapore should rebrand itself, alongside with Uniquely Singaporean, as the "hubpolis" of the world.

The Johore Road one quite funny, plus I like the whole poster, think I'll print it out.

Milo... mmmm... I miss Milo a lot when I'm in the US. Now that's Uniquely Singaporean (or Malaysian or Southeast Asian).

Talking about Parking Wardens... I saw one waiting next to a car. Yup. Waiting for the coupon to expire. I thought that was quite mean, I guess there was probably only 5 minutes or something left, but still. They're evil I tell you. Not just the Aunties, but the Uncles too. They know when you cheat on the time, or when your coupon runs out. The one time you think it's ok, it's NOT! They're everywhere. Sometimes I think they use super advanced technology like cloaking and mind reading technology to know just when you decided to cheat on 5 minutes.

By the way, does anyone know why Talking Cock is down? I'm thinking maintenance, but maybe they're all on "holiday" at Whitley "resort centre."

National Day

2004-08-10T12:04:00.000-04:00

Ok. For those worried that I'd ended up at Whitley "Holiday Resort" enjoying the "Ice cube Spa package," fret not. I was just relaxing over the National Day holiday. Taking a break over the hustle and bustle of life, that kind of deal.

Birthdays area time for reflection, and I think this is a good time for some soul searching. So once again we had a successful dog and pony show, with fireworks and overworked students and National Slaves. Oh, and we should not forget the gullible masses. For 364 days of the year, they b%#&h and moan about their lives and how it sucks, but come one August day and suddenly everyone loves the country. Seriously, you can love your country and still say bad things about it and its government. Furthermore these celebrations are a waste of time and money. Students and soldiers have better things to do (at least the students). The Americans usually just have fireworks, not much else. I understand that we're a young nation and still unsure of our national identity and place in the world, but I think at 39, we don't really need a huge party with clowns (a.k.a SAF top brass), magicians and a huge birthday cake. I mean my 24th is coming up and all I'm doing is a BBQ with 7 friends. Not much else. So why can't we move from the bread and circuses model, to something more simple to reflect our maturity and out self-confidence?

Talking about National Day... There's always the National Day awards, and Jack Neo won the Public Service Medal. Make a few inoffensive films and suddenly you're deemed to have done commendable public service. C'mon! Seriously. I didn't even get Home Run. How is it a metaphor for Singapore and Malaysia? Besides references to "we're all from the same kampung," I really don't see the connection. Of course his other movies try to reflect the Singaporean side of life, but seriously he's too preachy and there's always a happy ending, unlike the Singaporean side of life. A rose by any other name... Can you all say propaganda, children? I think I should make some agitprop (without the agit) movies and get myself a PSM.

Metasis made a good national day post, and I think he shares many ideas with the rest of us. I know too many people who are whiners and complain about how Singapore sucks. I seriously have a thing with those people (some of my friends included). They always seem to think the grass is greener on the other side. I don't think so. People always ask me if Singapore or the USA is better, and I always like the say the grass is equally green on both sides. We win some, we lose some. I have nothing against "quitters," since it does help rid us of whiners. I do have something against whiners though. To quote Arnie in Kindergarten Cop: "Stop Whining!" Seriously. STOP WHINING!

If you have a problem, try to fix it. Don't keep crying about it. I think Singapore is a good place to live in, not the best, but good enough. I don't know where I'll end up working, since I might not be able to find a job here in Singapore (one of those things, where I'm more highly prized and paid elsewhere). Things definitely need to change, and if I am home, or if I am needed back here, I'm more than happy to try and fix things.

Enough of whiner bashing. Moving on to other interesting news. I think we should be glad that our government didn't hit on this brilliant idea of taxation. It'll be like the tobacco tax, since most of us are hooked on SMS.

So it's 10.30am Singapore time. Which means the Dragon Prince has been summoned to the Istana, and has been "invited" (nice way to put it) to form the new government. Yay! (Not!) Well Old man Goh has gone up the mountain to join Old man Lee. I wonder if after 14 years of Young Man Lee, will Singaporeans still cheer like they did yesterday? Or will the cheering be because it's finally over? We can only wait and see...

By the way, this was not reported in local presses, because of official policy. But the Nation'04 is not the first, since they've been doing this for a while now. Hopefully in time, people will come to accept homosexuality (I'm still against encouraging the lifestyle, but I think GLBTs should be treated as equal fellow human beings).

It seems researchers have made a link between mentally demanding jobs and Alzheimers'. Before you go thinking that you should do less thinking work, it turns out that scientists have made the tentative link that if you're in a mentally demanding job, you're chances of getting the disease are much lower. So that would explain why professors don't usually get Alzheimers'.

More war of words over China and Taiwan. I think this might lead to war in less than 10 years. Which means more unstable times for Southeast Asia and our little island home. All because of some p#$&ks in Taiwan refuse to read the writing on the wall.

Well that's it for this long weekend special. Catch all of you soon.

Some News

2004-08-03T21:43:00.000-04:00

The Statue of Liberty is finally open again. Which means I wasted my trip to New York last year since I couldn't go up. Good sign that once again the symbol of freedom is once again open to pilgrimmage.

Saddam's daughter to go into politics? That's going to be a good one. Funny too. But I guess the Iraqi government cannot stop them from returning to Iraq and leading the Baath Party.

Biggest news on the home front is that Lucasfilm's has set up shop in Singapore. So does that mean we'll get to film Star Wars in Singapore? Yoda at Raffles Hotel fighting the Emperor? Will PAP members get a chance to be Stormtroopers? Will Singapore Technologies build the first TIE fighter, S series? Who knows.

News from the Void

2004-08-02T23:11:00.000-04:00

Some interesting opinions from my pals at the Void Deck:

Bo Zheng Hu assesses who should not take over certain ministries.

VIP

2004-08-02T22:58:00.000-04:00

Something funny. The VJC integrated program is called the VIP, which is funny. Seriously. Can you imagine the coversations:

"Sorry sir, this is only for VIPs."
"Yah! I am VIP what!"
"No, no sir. I mean VIPs."
"Yup. That's me."
"You look kind of young to be the Minister for Transport."
"Huh?"
"VIP. Very Important Person. You know."
"Oh... I thought you meant Victoria Integrated Program. V.I.P."

Jeez... I can only imagine how funny that is. Hard to tell people where you're study.

So I guess Raffles' one should be the RIP.
Hwa Chong will be HIP.
Dunman High will be DIP.
And Slytherin's... I meant ACJC's will be SIP... I meant ACIP.

The Anglo - Chinese Integrated Program... Sound's bi... Bicultural that is. You'd think with a name like that, they'd produce brilliant biculturalists, instead they produce Bananas (yellow on the outside, white on the inside).

Ok. Ok. Enough ACS bashing. Almost ended up in that school. Would have become a banana too. When I was in Cat. High I thought I really was a banana and that I sucked at Chinese. Then I went to JC and met ACS and VS boys, and that's when I realised that although I'm not God's gift to Chinese, I'm definetely not going to burn in Chinese Hell (all of them).

Today's Yahoo's popular searches:

Popular Searches: Singapore Fireworks Festival, Esplanade, S. League, NDP 2004, Jay Chou, Asian Cup 2004

The Democrats a'comin'

2004-08-02T02:56:00.000-04:00

Ok. So the Democratic National Convention ended with a big bang and now the Republicans are gearing up for theirs. It's going to be a long electoral fight. So here's some news from the DNC on John Edwards and John Kerry.

I'm a Republican sympathiser, because I think they're less hypocritcal than the Democratic leadership. Well Democrats argue that the public education system is not that bad, but they send all their kids to private schools. Democrats tend to be softer on crime, but they tend to hide in gated communities, away from the crimes. Democrats argue that they help the poor and downtrodden, but so many of them are scions of rich and powerful families. You may argue that all politicians are slimy, but the Democrats are far more oily than the Republicans.

I'm also glad that the DNC is over, so no more media coverage on just Kerry and Edwards. Time for the Republicans to shine.

Elections are such an exciting time. Especially in the country which holds the world together in more ways than we'd like to acknowledge.

Just as an aside, news on ASEAN and its Free Trade Area (AFTA).

Hogwarts ala Singapore

2004-08-02T00:27:00.000-04:00

Ok. So one day me and my girlfriend were walking down Bugis Junction and we saw some kids with wind breakers on and she asked me if they were from RI. Being a good Catholic school boy I knew they were SJI and so I told her so. I also said that RI had a griffin in their crest like Gryffindor, since she's such a big Potterite and all.

This lead me to explain further by saying that Gryffindor has a Harry and so does RI (Harry Lee). Furthermore Harry has a lightning bolt as a identifier, so does Harry Lee (Men in White). This lead me to draw from my own experiences at Catholic High to say that Catholic High School boys are from Hufflepuff. We work hard, we have a sense of justice (Confucius and Christianity will do that to you) and we're loyal (we're either civil servants or secret society bosses). Ravenclaw was a bit of a toss up, but they're supposed to be quick witted and love learning, and so we eventually plumped for SJI, since I know many SJI boys who are funny and I suppose they do enjoy learning (I know, it's a stretch). I know these are all boy schools, but I know little of girl schools to make any comparison.

So who should be Slytherin. That was easy. The answer was ACS boys. They're smooth, cunning and a little oily. Doesn't mean they're all evil, but you get the idea.

Well that's it for the Houses of Hogwarts in Singapore. Hope you all liked this little tidbit from my weekend.

Nevermind

2004-08-01T23:43:00.000-04:00

Cancel the Fahrenheit 9/11 announcement. It managed to crawl out of the censors in time for the 5 August Premiere. Oy vey...

August is here

2004-08-01T23:18:00.000-04:00

So here's some news from around the world:

One about our once and future king from across the waters. Note: The Author has an axe to grind with Singapore.

Fahrenheit 9/11's premiere in Singapore has been delayed 2 weeks by Singapore Censors. So I guess we'll get 5 minutes of footage then.

Also if you read the Newpaper on Sunday you'll learn that you don't need to send an SMS to TVMobile or pay $2000 to install it in you car, when you can fork out $200 and use your laptop as a monitor and watch 4 channels free instead of only one. Amazing what technology can do for you.

Well that's it for now. I'll probably post something else later today.

Yahoo!

2004-07-29T16:10:00.000-04:00

I found this little gem on the Yahoo Singapore webpage. I think it's really interesting. Has anyone else noticed it? Or is it just me? This gives all of us a view as to what Singaporeans using Yahoo are looking for:

Popular Searches: S. League, NDP 2004, Jay Chou, Asian Cup 2004, "Who Lives Near You", Taegukgi

(as of 3.10pm Singapore Time, 29 July 2004, Thursday)

So it's basically soccer, entertainment and this Friendster-like website. Heh. Kind of interesting really.

Really should pay attention

2004-07-29T00:19:00.000-04:00

Man. I really should pay attention to the news. PAP is telling us that we have it good; every generation does that doesn't it? Yah, my maternal great grandfather came here on a boat, but my maternal grandfather went to school in a horse-drawn carriage. Siong meh? I go to school by bus. Yah, last time my paternal grandfather walk to school, but he lived next door. When I was in Secondary School I had to sit on MRT/SBS for 1 1/2 hours before getting home. Sure last time both my grandfathers didn't go to University, but they both got 'O' Levels, which meant they could be government clerks. My dad also only 'O' Levels but last time can find job in any MNC. Now I have BA also hard to find job. So who has it good? Last time got no AIDS and cancer not as prevalent, but got TB and no good medicine. But now also got incurable diseases and TB still around, plus now got SARS. So like that draw lah.

I think Minister Khaw and the older generation better stop telling us how good it is for us. We live in different times which call for different answers. Like that our ancestors had it worst than us. Live in caves and eat raw meat, no lights, no bus, no government. Siong lah. F#$king Bulls^&t. Nothing else better to talk about issit?

Lost roots and lost souls. Heh. Another push for bi-culturalists. So my roots where? Singapore. My soul? Catholic Church. So like that how? Help humanity or help my country? Sometimes my country to do things contrary to helping humanity? Minister Khaw, like that how?

I just had to say

2004-07-28T22:34:00.000-04:00

Ok. So I came across this on the Straits Times (usually I ignore the BS stuff from there), and I think some kids are overachievers and others, like me, are underachievers. I mean I wanted to do a BA/MA thing, but then I thought why go through all the stress. Enjoy myself in the US and make contacts. Oh well, some folks are meant to be Singaporean Scholar-Mandarins and others, like me, are meant to be Global Nomads.

Round and Round

2004-07-28T21:50:00.000-04:00

Ok some news from Malaysia. One about Malaysian Idol and one about Michael Moore. The Malaysian Idols are really quite good, I don't know about the Singapore Idols. But if the teaser is anything to go by, I think Singapore Idol might be good too. I'm no Idol fan (my girlfriend has to bribe me with the S word before I'll sit down and watch), but I think Singapore Idol can be fun. Someone keep me posted on the going ons please? I'll be away. The Michael Moore one was interesting, a good piece, I think. I still think the guy is an a&*hole. But everyone is entitled to say what they like, whether it's true or not.

In other news, China now has "Taiwan 2020" plan. Yup. It's official, China's going to take Taiwan back by 2020 latest. I'm sure they'll be more successful than our Goal 2010. Listen Taiwan, no one in East or Southeast Asia wants a cross-straits war, so why don't you take one for the team and go back to China. Afterall you're not even a nation. You can't speak at the UN or WHO, I mean you're only an observer. I mean even the Vatican is a recognised nation. Seriously, your childish acts were what got China riled up, so now they have this 2020 plan, so don't go running to anyone and saying how mean the Chinese are. You asked for it. I mean China can definitely do it. If they can shut down 700 porn sites (sorry all you cheekopeks out there) in less than a month, they can take over Taiwan in 16 years.

Well that's it for today. See you all soon.

Number 2

2004-07-27T23:35:00.000-04:00

Yup. So the Old Man of Oxley pointed out that Lao Goh will be Number Two in the cabinet. A friend of mine asked if Old Man was number 1 and Old Goh was number 2 and Dragon Prince was number 3. But Old Man said that Dragon Prince will be boss when he become PM. Old Man also said something to the extent that he'd stop being involved in Singapore only if you pry it from his cold, dead hands. As for titles...

PM LHL, SM GCT and Grand High Poobah LKY. Or maybe Official Advisor to the PM. Or Senior than Senior Minister. Or Super Lao Jiao Minister. Or Supreme Being.

Now for the fun part of naming the rest of the Cabinet... Who knows where everyone will end up.

Also today the Nominated Member of Parliament nominations are now open. I wonder who will be selected this time. Usually if you read the transcripts of Parliament, it's the NMP who ask a lot of questions. Which leads me to the theory that maybe NMPs should be paid more than the MP who's always sleeping in the back row. Yeah. You know who you are. Don't need to hide. It's because of you they stopped televising Parliament "live." Well that and it really is boring. So maybe that's why you're sleeping. Poor thing.

So Star Wars Episode 3 spoilers have been floating around. Some are quite interesting, but who knows which is real and which is hype. But confirm Count Douku sure die and Jar Jar doesn't. Also Palpatine/Darth Sidious will get a lot of action time and also they'll tell us the reason why Darth Vader got his name.

Ok. I'm taking off for some afternoon Z catching. I'll see all of you soon.

Price Hikes

2004-07-26T21:44:00.000-04:00

So the ERP at Fort Road has been raised by 50 cents to $1.50. So the Class 95 morning show crew were asking if motorists were paying for the Nicholl Highway crash which motorists had no control over. At the same time the gentry at Kallang on the PIE has been removed. So more jams on the PIE or pay like crazy on the ECP. I think it makes more sense to ride public transport to work. Now all we need to do is get rid of all those ugly Singaporeans.

Yesterday I was on my way back from work. So I was on Clementi headed towards Orchard to meet my friends for dinner. The trip to Raffles Place was alright, most of the people on the East - West line seem to be more polite or something (I ride that way home everyday). Anyway, I change at Raffles Place and I know it gets bloody crowded at City Hall, so I moved in to make way for people. But everyone else was cluster f*%king at the door. So it looks like Sardines at the door, while I had so much space I was wondering if I had BO. Anyway it gets progressively worse until Orchard, and after Somerset I wanted to go towards the exit, so I politely told this guy that I was headed for the door and if he could make way. But instead of just moving aside, he stared at me as if I was at fault for moving to the bloody door to get off at my bloody stop. Seriously, folks! Of course once the doors open at Orchard, there were these two ladies who just kept blocking me, so I had to use all the skills I picked up from American Football playing for my Fraternity team and also from Madden 2004. Felt like it too. I think after this, next season I'll be an amazing Running Back or Half Back. Even the nice Middle Eastern tourist couple knew how to get out of the way (I knew they were tourist coz' they kept checking the map, think they were trying to get to the Night Safari).

Maybe there should be an Ugly Singaporean Ban to go along with the Durian Ban and the no Food Ban. Talking about MRT, I was taking the train to Changi Airport and it occurred to me, why don't they extend it to Changi Village. My girlfriend, of course, said that no one wanted tourists to see Chao Recruits ( fresh NS boys who don't have to serve extra 6 months unlike me, bloody chao aquas) and Chao Aquas ( Cross-dressers and Transsexuals). But I thought it would be every recruits dream to have an MRT station at the Fast Craft Dock. Luckily during my Army days I live down the road, so I just take Bus Number 2 home.

Anyway Singapore Airport like a huge Mall. Think next time when my pals come to visit must show them Changi Airport first. I mean there's even a $10 haircut place near the T2 Skytrain. Even the Cold Storage downstairs of T2 stocks rice. I mean more than one brand of rice, so I'm guessing people travel all the way to the airport to buy rice. "Come to Singapore, stay at our Airport, that's all you need to see anyway." Uniquely Singaporean.

News Flash

2004-07-25T22:32:00.000-04:00

Fahrenheit 9/11 will be coming to Singapore on the 5th of August.

News News News... or lack thereof

2004-07-25T21:30:00.000-04:00

Ok. So this morning on the radio, 93.8 FM, they were talking about Minister Teo saying we should send more scholars to non-English nations. Of course the main push was to China, since that was in line with gah'men policy. But maybe we should consider other countries like, Russia (a lot of Chinese leaders from the second and first generation came from Russian schools) and France (ditto), Japan also (ditto). How about the Germans? Or maybe Egypt? Lebanon? South Africa? Argentina? Brazil? India?

Then someone mentioned Law, and how maybe go another non-English country to study it. It seems people don't understand that we can't go elsewhere. Most of Western Europe uses Napoleonic Laws, the US has evolved away from English Common Law, South America uses Spanish style Law, China has no law and the former Soviet nations also have no laws are use the Western European model. So how to study law elsewhere but within the Commonwealth?

So Singapore also broke another world record. I mean we suck at sports, but all those weird activities... We come out tops. If there was such a thing as couch potato Olympics, we'd win. A 72 hour movie marathon? We're proud that we have myopic, fat, popcorn eating, coke guzzling citizens? Seriously, this isn't something we should be proud about. Of course it was reported in the Washington Post, The Star and Straits Times. I told you it was a slow weekend.

On other Singaporean news, there isn't any. Another slow news weekend. Now you know why I hate Mondays. It seems out reporters also on holiday. And they keep raising the newspaper costs.

Talking about raising fees, the pundits were right. It's fee hike season. Grab your fee hikes and go shoot some wide eyed unsuspecting Singaporean. Improved economy my big fat a@#. Maybe for the top tier, but no trickle down has reached the bottom yet and already everyone is hiking their fees. Seriously, no wonder our fellow Singaporeans are taking a hike to other countries. Can you say "BRAIN DRAIN?"

So Bush lead Kerry in the polls right now. 217 to 193 electoral seats I think. Really narrow race. 270 is needed to be elected President. So I guess it might come down to Congress and Senate to pick the new President. That'll be a first in a long time. Anyway the Democratic convention is going on in Boston right now. Sort of a formality I suppose, since John Kerry has been the "chosen one" since early this year.

Talking about "chosen ones" Star Wars Episode III has a title: Revenge of the Sith. Judging form the cartoon Star Wars: The Clone Wars, this movie will actually redeem the lousy Episode II. And also that would mean 12 odd hour marathons to finish all 6 episodes. That would top the 10 hours of Lord of the Rings.

Well this is all I have for a Monday. Check all of you out soon.

Food for thought

2004-07-22T22:02:00.000-04:00

Ok. So the world continues to spiral out of control. Taiwan and China look like they're about to go ape s%#t over each other and Singapore got dragged into the muck. Parti Islam Se-Malaysia's chief is in the hospital with a heart attack (I would get one too, if my party lost so badly). And the US Presidential Election gets tighter and closer everyday (I'm a Republican at heart, but with John Edwards on board, I'm leaning toward Kerry).

But of course, in Today, the big news is Milo is going to be drunk at the Sports School. Like as if school kids have never known Milo is a good drink. If only they had it in the US. I always remember after running cross-country got Milo to drink. Ice Cold Milo. That was the best incentive during Army days as well. Syrup drinks were good, but Ice Milo, fwah, that one can "chiong san chiong hai." I think Sports School shouldn't have wasted money hiring nutritionists to check it out, just watch the Milo commercials lah. People spend so much money to let you know, it's great for soccer and swimming. Maybe that's why Sport School's swim team no good, they didn't drink Milo, unlike ACS and RI.

I guess Today really has inane things to report. Like what Explorer Khoo is going to do next. Seriously, I didn't think the ferry service from Singapore to Batam was that bad. Must be trying to get out of work. "Eh, Khoo where you going?" "Training for my swim. So I take paid leave, and if I run out, you just give me more lah. "How can?" "Eh! Who put the Singapore flag on Everest, you or me?" Please Mr Khoo, go back to work and help contribute to our GDP and GNI. What are you going to do next? Swim the entire Pacific to California?

So now we have a new security coordination agency. But NSCS sounds weird. Sounds like enhanced NS. Anyway, I think it's a lousy name and more red tape for all the departments that fall under its purview. So now have to report both to boss and the NSCS boss. Then take leave ask which boss? Maybe can skive, by telling one boss you'll be at the other boss' place. Then go drink coffee and eat roti prata. Same time while eating can keep a close watch on any suspicious cars parked along Jalan Kayu (how about all of them, since their all illegally parked). Also can't be too sure if there aren't any terrorist eating prata too. I suggest they also stake out arcades. Must be careful of all those kids playing sniper type games and also those flying simulators. Think they training for terrorist attacks. Also must watch those people playing the truck simulator, later they drive truck into building. We must be vigilant. We should also go to schools and check out the chemistry students, later they learn to make bombs. Watch which kid has an evil gleam in the eye when they see the Sodium/Water combo. I think instead of sending the parking aunties and uncles to fine illegally parked cars, we should have the police tow it away and arrest the driver as a terrorist under the ISA. After a while in Whitley detention centre, you'll notice illegal parking will be reduced by 80% (I pulled that number out of my a@#). For that matter arrest anyone sitting at a void deck and charge them as terrorists. Soon no more teenagers making out in the void deck. Heh. Vigilance is important. Imagine:

"Hello. Police?"
"Yes, this is Coporal Tan. How can I help you?"
"There's this van parked downstairs my block. Been parked there for 10 minutes already."
"Ok ma'am. I'll send someone to check."
--- 5 minutes later ---
"Ma'am. It's just the mail van."
"No. I tell you suspicious. The guy is slotting stuff in mailboxes. Like terrorist. Maybe mail bomb."
Line goes dead on Police side...

Anyway, it's good to be vigilant, but let's not get out of hand. Just because a person of Arab or Malay descent is going to the airplane bathroom often doesn't mean he's a terrorist. He could just have stomach ache. So relax and stop buzzing the air hostess.

Alright time to skeedadle.

Moore updates

2004-07-21T22:44:00.000-04:00

Ok. So the BBC reported on what the Austrlians had to say about Mr Michael "I'm too good for all of you" Moore. I think the Australians hated it and the Aussie government slammed Mr Moore for being the a*#hole that he is (in case you haven't figured it out, I hate the guy). But besides slamming Mr Moore, I'd like to point out what the Aussie minister said:

"Mr Costello, who holds the second highest position in the Australian government, criticised Moore, but said the film-maker was entitled to express his views.
'Mike Moore is entitled to his opinion but that's the quintessential ugly American, sitting down attacking the Australian prime minister,' said Mr Costello. "

Yup. Freedom of speech folks. Having lived in the US, I kinda like it. Say what you want but you gotta deal with the consequences of your words and actions. Something I think that is lacking in Singapore, thanks to self-censorship and the higher power's implicit encouragment of self-censorship.

Just a short one for now. Will be back soon.

Office Politics

2004-07-21T11:30:00.000-04:00

Hello. If you've read the Jakarta Post and the Straits Times today, you'll notice subtle differences in the reporting over the Straits of Malacca deal, while nothing is reported in Malaysia. Always interesting if you ask me.

Also the Straits Times today has a lot of news on DPM Lee's visit to Taiwan. Must be little else to report so dig up old news from Xinhua and People's Daily. I remember once I read something in the Economist and five weeks later it appeared in the Straits Times. There's no news like old news. Sometimes I think the Straits Times is like the guy in the group/office who thinks he has hot gossip, but really its like so old that everyone forgot about it.

Just read Today and found this interesting article. The problem is PM Kozumi is not the man for China-Japan normalisation. Strongest supporters for a Pan-East Asia organisation are China and Malaysia. Indonesia remains largely apprehensive and Japan needs to get out of its funk. India remains an interested outsider and has constantly "battled" China over influence in Southeast Asia. I don't think an EU-like organisation in Asia will spring up. We should innovate and come up with our own organisation to deal with our regional issues. As much as I hate to use civilisational analysis (thanks to Professor Huntington), I'd like to point out that Europe is basically Western and Byzantine cultures, while Asia is a hodge-podge of various civilisational "blocs" (try Islamic, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Southeast Asian). Whatever model we adopt it won't be EU-ish. Indonesia, China and India combined make up more people than the EU. How can an East Asian organisation have an equal voice for both China and Brunei (pop: less than a million). Whatever arrangement we come up with we'll need to work it out on our own.

Moving on to latest office talk. So betting on the date of handover is over and new pools are being formed on the cabinet. Who will be DPM? 2 SMs (SMS..heh)? Finance Minister? Defense Minister? Foreign Minister? Why is Lim Swee Say going back to NTUC? Such a waste. I know Vivian Balakrishnan will not be Foreign Minister. Can you imagine the mistake so many protocol departments will make thinking he's a her? Wonder who education Minister will be? Reinstitute coporal punishment and make everyone do NCC? Who'll retire? Who'll be promoted? Sounding more and more like betting on World Cup or Euro or Copa (for the hard core betters out there).

I smell breakfast folks, so I got to go. Hang in there coz' I'll be back with more to say soon.

Slow News Weekend

2004-07-19T01:10:00.000-04:00

Yeah. Slow news weekend folks. Nothing in the dozens of newspapers I've read. I wonder if like all media outlets talk to each other... "Allo'. Le Monde here" "Hey Mondey. This is BBC, anything new?" "Nope." "Harlow? Straits Times here, any 5 week old article for me to publish?" "Nope." "Sorry."

Anyway... The biggest news in Singapore is ole' PM Goh becoming ex-PM Goh. We'll miss you Mr. Goh. People's touch indeed. It was a nice 14 year break. Well back to a different style of leadership. I think all you punters had better buy 1208 or 0812 or 0804 or 0408 soon. I swear over the next few weeks, those numbers will be SOLD OUT. Just like the last time. Straits Times today was saying how all foreign newspapers kept saying how LHL was LKY's son and all that, but ignored that LHL has been in cabinet so long. ST also say how other world leaders come in fresh, inexperienced, unlike LHL. Erm... Well other countries' got such thing called electoral choice. Like Mr. Tony Blair. He also fresh and new some time ago. Before that Conservative Party rule for 30 odd years. But Mr. Blair didn't really screw up too bad. But even here in Singapore, everything also new what, why we need old musty guy, who been in the cabinet for so long. My clothes keep in cabinet so long also moth-eaten.

Moving on (don't want the Imperial sovereign Protectors to get me)... So other day Singapore Sports School in news. Their 'C' girls won swimming. What about 'B' girls? And the boys? I thought supposed to be premier school. How come ACS and RI can trounce them? Not possible mah. So much emphasis on sports. I mean ACS and RI boys not as specialised. Soccer leh? Sailing? No wins... Don't get me started on Latvia and Sweden again.

No more bashing on Sports. Let's move to NKF. How come their show only catered to Chinese audience? Why not have an English charity show. Like that can appeal to Chinese, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, Ang Mo, Others audience also. More money.

Talking about Chinese, how come TV Mobile so much Chinese programs? I mean I'm Chinese and I understand, but seriously, why cannot be nicer and make it all English? Sure, people argue old Chinese folks cannot understand English. But should we not try to be fair. Old Malay and old Indian folk also may not understand English. But young Chinese, Malay and Indian folk all understand English to some competent level. So how? How about we make it like this lah, 50% English programs, 20% Chinese programs, 20% Malay programs, 10% Indian programs. Then like that I also can learn Malay and Tamil. No seriously, I like watching old Malay movies, P Ramlee and the rest. Also Hindi movies, good watch. Especially Lagaan. That was some good stuff (might be because I'm a cricketer). More fair lor. Also help each other understand the other communities' problems and worries (are drama serials not a reflection of a communities problems, ableitly exaggerated).

Back to raising money, so I noticed that flag days are a very Singaporean thing, which made me think that it could be from the old days when the Chinese nationalist tried to raise money for rebellion by selling flags. Then you put flag outside your shop and house, and people know you are a good Chinese. Pro-China, Anti-Manchu. If you don't have people will shun you. Today, the tradition slightly evolved. Now you put on a sticker so you won't get hassled like as if you were in Bali tourist district. "Want to buy? Very cheap and good." My friend said a bit like protection money. Heh... I would say something, but later NKF sue me (this defamation suits thing is really taking off here in Singapore).

Also the other day, SMRT say they're interested in going regional. Good idea, like that Chinese and Indonesian commuters can also experience frequent LRT breakdowns, train stations that are not open (I know the NE line is not under SMRT, but still), random bag checks, and EZlink cards that can also be used to buy McDonald's, but must pay $5 non-refundable deposit (how is an unrefundable deposit a deposit).

Also read that now got Singapore-style Malls in Indonesia. So now I can go to Jakarta and eat BreadTalk. And buy M)phosis bags. Maybe the service will be better, plus no GST. Sounds like a plan, maybe even the lines will be shorter. I wonder if the Great Singapore Sale, will become the Great Singapore-Style Mall Sale in Indonesia. Maybe we can import listless youths, coffee sipping teens, students studying in cafes, tai tais and a few bengs to make it more authentic. Also must have the rude sales girls, pushy/aggressive shoppers.

Ok I got to go now. Catch all of you soon.

Upsized Fahrenheits

2004-07-15T00:45:00.000-04:00

Ok. Ok. So suddenly there's a whole slate of documentaries that supposedly tell the truth about something or other.

First we have Fahrenheit 9/11 a show by Michael Moore. Mr Moore is a liberal bully boy. His Bowling for Columbine, was just irritating. Seriously, like there isn't enough liberal media out there. The Czech president came out saying it reminded him of old Communist propaganda. It's very important to know where the truth lies. Mr Moore is spreading his version of the story, just as President Bush is telling his own side of it. The truth usually lies somewhere between the two extremes. Be warned that Michael Moore is the left-wing equivalent of a fascist. It's surprising we don't really have a mean name for them. I mean "tree hugging hippie" just doesn't cut it as much as " Gun-touting fascist." Talk about language bias.

Then we have Supersize Me. A show that tells us exactly what we already know. I means seriously I always thought eating McDonald's will help me slim down. Like Jared from Subway. Who doesn't know fast food is bad for health. I swear that Burger King set this up, so McDonald's would have a public relations nightmare. But seriously, who eats 3 meals of McDonald's in a day for a whole month? I mean you got to get in your Burger King lunch and KFC dinner. What about MOS Burger?

Just eat Subway, they've been sprouting up all over. I mean Jared lost a lot of weight after a pure Subway Diet. Of course the small print says he did it with help from dieticians and fitness coaches. So really folks, just exercise. Forgot all the silly diets, eat healthy and exercise. Maybe one McDonald's a week. But 2 hours of exercise each day and eat healthy meals. You know, fruits and vegetables with some lean meat. Avoid the oily and fried. Simple stuff people. And can be found in Singapore. Drink water instead of Coke.

Maybe someone should do a "Fizz me up" movie. See what happens if you only drank Coke for a month. Actually I know people who only drink caffeinated drinks. I had a friend bounce off car walls one night. Easy on the caffeine folks.

Talking about Fahrenheit, has anyone read the book or watched the movie Fahrenheit 451. It's really a good book, highly ironic. Go read...

Ok, so King Arthur opens in Singapore. A lot of fanfare and reviews, but everyone seems to avoid To Kill a King. Seriously, I don't want to know more about King Arthur and his knights, who couldn't F@#%ing agree with one another, so the king has to build a round table to ensure all his petty knights are happy. Seriously, just go hire some Commando from Singapore. They specialise in cheating at IPPT and killing people during training. So what you do is hire them and send them to the enemy to work. The enemy's army will then be unfit and mostly dead. Hmmm... Maybe Singapore is already doing that.

I really want to watch To Kill a King, it's much better. But maybe our Clown... I mean, Crown Prince (you all know who it is) is worried about the implications. Afraid we all get ideas on how to kill a king and install a republic. Talking about the man, so Taiwan says he's there to mediate between China and Taiwan, but China says they don't need anyone to talk on their behalf. I thought he was on a private trip. Private trip also do work? No wonder they pay him $1 million a year.

Ok I got to go. Before the Imperial Sovereign Protectors (also known as ISD in Singapore), come and hang me from a noose or make me sit on an ice cube. So maybe the next time I post, I'll be in the Bahamas hiding out.

China and Singapore

2004-07-12T22:09:00.000-04:00

Ok. So now we have a little diplomatic tussle with China. All thanks to our Once and Future King, DPM Lee Hsien Long. Yeah. He's off visiting friends in Taiwan, despite the protestations of the Chinese. So what exactly does that mean?

Well MAS had organised a talk with the speaker being the head banker of the People's Bank of China, but he cancelled his trip. Hmmm... I wonder why China's top central banker suddenly could not come to Singapore...

You know, if you really have to see friends you haven't seen in twelve years, you could ask them to meet you half way. Surely it's a small inconvenience compared to pissing off your big trade partner. Taiwan is important to Singapore but China is even more important. What will happen to all our biculturalist we are training? No relations with China, no job lor.

Actually why don't we train biculturalists to deal with Malaysia too. Malaysia is an important neighbour too. We should train more Malaysia specialists, and US specialists too. Also a few Latin American and Arab specialists wouldn't hurt. A Russian specialist would not hurt too, comrade. That way we keep our options open. Don't forget the EU specialists, now that's a life time of studying, even if they don't expand.

Talking about Europe, so this weekend they were comparing Singapore to Latvia, and asking why we can't succeed like them, or Norway or Sweden. Well, we don't start young. That's the answer. So true... Need to get them at 7 and 8, but every parent wants to produce a Beethoven and not a Beckham. Who cares if Beethoven had to find patrons, while Beckham is a relatively rich man. Yes, yes. I know what a pleb I am. No appreciation for the fine arts. Which leads me to the next question. How come all our pianinsts start young, but we only have like 2 or 3 famous ones, who are mostly girls, and usually have been abroad for a long time. Coz' most kids HATE their piano lessons. I was blessed with parents who allowed me to read instead to learning some silly instrument.

Now don't get me wrong. If you enjoy playing an instrument, that's good. But if you don't, I can only imagine the hell you live in.

So basically, once we get to a certain age, our parents start telling us to concentrate on a job and career. Once it was engineering, then computer sciences & IT, then business, then Biomedical, then who knows what else. I tell you be like the McDonald's head right now, he started flipping burgers at 14 in Australia. Now the number two is form France, also started like that.

Back to China. Sigh... Now we got major damage control to do with our big neighbour. You think someone with so much intelligence coupled with so much more intelligence behind him would figure out that someone of his capacity visiting Taiwan on holiday could still cause unhappiness in China. "But my dad go no problem leh." "Yes, but you're not your dad. You've pointed that out yourself. Dimwit."

Ok, gotta go. See all of you soon.

Elections

2004-07-07T22:02:00.000-04:00

So Indonesia has had a presidential election. In fact, its Indonesia's first ever direct presidential election since 1955. Good for the Indonesian people. Some of my Indonesian friends went to the Indonesian embassy to vote for various candidates. That's a good sign. Also Mexico has gone to the vote and many overseas Mexicans have gone to local embassies and consulates to let their will be known. Of course, Mexico just managed to break the PRI's grip on politics in the 1990s. Actually, so did Indonesia.

Indonesia's front runner, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono... Now that's a cool name. Everyone in the media is calling him SBY. I mean seriously, that's like such a cool name. It also helps that Mr Susilo is charismatic and also quite capable. Go Army! Ms Megawati is running in second place with Ex-General Wiranto in third. Seriously, throughout the entire campaign Ex-General Wiranto seems to have no last name. My friend suggested Ex is his first name, General is his middle name and Wiranto is really his last name. Elections were very smooth and so far there has only been on case of fraud, where Army trucks delivered voters to a certain polling station and they all voted for Wiranto. And all these people weren't even from the area. One incident in such a huge country where free and fair elections are a new thing after 50 years... Very good indeed! Indonesia has come a long way in terms of democracy.

Which leads me to Singapore. My home... Well I can't vote... Not that I legally can't, its just that my district always gets a walkover. Who wants to fight with the party of White? I also can't vote in the presidential elections coz' no one wants to run for it. Last time round they had to beg people to be president. "Tolong leh. If you don't be we got to ask the Uncle who sleeps by the road side to be leh. Help lah." And even if there was another candidate running against the 115th choice for President, I still can't vote. That's because I'm overseas, and since I'm overseas, my rights as a citizen is forfeit. So why the hell do I still pay taxes to the government? Why is my income counted in the GNI (Gross National Income)? Hey no vote, no pay! Taxation without representation (where have we heard that before)!

Sure "some" Singaporeans can vote overseas. You know... The Government Sychophants, erm, I mean Scholars and the Un-Civil, I mean Civil, Servants. They can vote because they are responsible Singaporeans. Unlike me, you know the guy that goes overseas to study and then come home to work. I not responsible. How to be? Everyday study only. Come home look after parents. Irresponsible lah. I tell you, that's why I join Civil Service also no promotion. I not government scholar, not responsible enough. Cannot trust me to do a good job mah. Because last time ah, JC never study, O level also not so many A1s. Everyday only sort school archives and build solar powered cars. Only know how to help out at church and teach Sunday school. Only can go to Sisters of Mercy and clean the place. No responsibility whatsoever.

Seeing how irresponsible I am, I decided that I should go work for some other nation. I figure I go there and destroy them lah. Help Singapore become number 1 in something. That reminds me of another rant, but I'll save that for another time.

Some Cash with your Groceries, sir?

2004-07-07T21:16:00.000-04:00

Ok. So I decided to try the whole NTUC cash back scheme. But the nice lady at the counter told me I could only draw in multiples of 50, so no $20 for me. Furthermore they charged $0.30 to use the system. What the hell?! Having tested out the system in the US, I know that I can draw any multiple of $10 I want from the cashier and there is no charge. Here's what I think... In a year NTUC will release a statement saying that they're scraping the system because Singaporeans do not want to use the system. Look... It's not that we don't want to use it, but YOU ALL ARE F#@KING RETARDS! Seriously, maybe you should study more models and realise that you can do it like everybody else.

Which brings me to our umbrella union, NTUC. Jeez... What union in the world owns cabs, grocery stores, pharmacies and sells insurance, but does little workers' action and protection? That's right folks, NTUC! Maybe they should build a NTUC building somewhere to house all of that. We can combine synergies. So this sick fella gets into a NTUC Comfort cab all coughing and whizzing. The cab driver will tell him how NTUC has cheap medicine and take him there, whether the sick guy wants it at all. So Sick Guy goes to NTUC pharmacy to get some panadol and cough syrup. Now the pharmacist tells him that he should get some insurance and directs him to the NTUC Income counter right next door. There the Sick Guy can buy medical insurance, health insurance, life insurance, just in case. You never know what. Then off Sick Guy goes to NTUC Fairprice to get groceries and maybe some stuff to make like bu soup. And with all those plastic bags and free gifts (from NTUC Income), Sick Guy can get back into NTUC Comfort cab to send him home. Imagine that... They could call it "NTUC Wonderland." Even better still they could sell him 4day/3night package to one of NTUC's Chalets. "Sick ah? Maybe you need holiday lah, why don't you book a holiday at our Chalets."

I think NTUC should go into budget airlines too. Like NTUC Air... "We serve you only the best from NTUC Fairprice, and we will send you to the airport by NTUC Comfort. Plus 10% off Travel insurance from NTUC Income." Synergies man! Synergies...

Grumble Grumble

2004-07-07T03:27:00.000-04:00

So I was listening to the online stream of Class 95 with Vernetta Lopez while I was working on some papers, and they were giving away tickets to some performance at Aphrodisiac. Now the entry age for men was 25 and ladies was 21, but the singer performing on that night was under 25. So does that mean he can't go in? If he can enter, how come I, age 24, can't go in? Isn't this unfair?

I remember a time when I was like 16 and we always knew that at 18, we could finally drink and go to clubs. You know all the stories your older cousins and more sneakier friends 9with fake IDs) tell you about. Of course once you reach 18, you learn that all clubs have raised the age for guys to 21. So now you can hold a bloody rifle and "die for your country," but God forbid you get to go into a club and drink and meet girls. Now of course for girls its 18. So all your JC classmates are off clubbing, while all the guys sit outside and drink Tiger (Yes there was a lot of Tiger Time).

Then you turn 21, but guess what they raise the age to 23 at all the hip clubs. So I'm stuck enjoying more time with Tiger. Of course I get to chabot to the USA and enjoy the varied nightlife. Sure the age of drinking is 21, but at least it is uniform all over. Lousy Singaporean club operators. Of course they complain that no business. Maybe if you LOWERED the BLOODY MINIMUM AGE, you'd get more business you a$@holes! Well so now I'm over the 23 mark, and yet more clubs have raised it to 25. What the F*@K?! Is there some sort of conspiracy agianst everyone born after 1980?

I swear when I turn 25, they'll raise the minimum age to 28 or something and when I'm 60 years old, the minimum age will be like 100 or something. Jeez...

Well back to the grind and keep on thinking of the US where at least I know I can enter any club at the age of 21.

John Edwards - He's so pretty

2004-07-06T21:27:00.002-04:00

Yup! It's a fact now. John Edwards is to be John Kerry's running mate. Boston Brahmin meets Southern Boy. This kinds links to the fact that a pretty boy image is good with the women voters. Just like Amphibian, or was it Vivian, Balakrishnan. Some of my female friends were telling me about him and how cute/hot he is. I guess sex appeal matters more than policy. Heh.

Talking about our beloved men in white, I think Lim Swee Say is the PAP's Ah Beng. No seriously, he has a people's touch. And I'm not saying that coz' he also comes form Catholic High (Gong Jiao). He's bilingual and, a new term I've heard, bicultural. That's right folks, he can either send the lawyers after you or send some friends from the chap sar thiam triad after you. Not bad for a men in white (most of them are such westernised folks). I personally think he'd make a good Prime Minister for Singapore, but, well, Mr. Lee Hsien Long, also from Catholic High, has been named the next head honcho. Lim Swee Say for DPM, anyone?

Talking about politics, I was grumbling over the 6 month reduction in NS, and some friends and I came up with a new party... The 6 months Party (6MP). The first line of our manifesto would read: " Reduce the reservist liability by 6 High Cycles or 6 Low Cycles and 3 High Cycles." Either way we look at it, it's 6 months. 6 months is a lot of time in my life! So we figured if I'm back for good the next time a General Election is called, we'll constitute the party and run for elections. The only problem is we have few minority candidates. Amongst our friends we have a Jew and an Arab. We thought maybe if we put the two of them together and ran on a "peace process" campaign along with the huan wo liu ge yue campaign, we'd grab most of the votes. Where should our first area be? I was thinking Changi, coz' it's nice and quiet, plus got a few Army bases there, good for campaigning. Probably work the Northeast Areas and Bedok/Tampines as well. So vote for the 6 months party, our party symbol on the ballots will be a 6. Easy recognise one. 6 months off reservist with each vote. Stocks are limited. First come First serve! First 100 voters get an aircon suit as well.

A big HELLO!

2004-07-05T12:36:00.000-04:00

Well, here's my first blog. I wasn't a big fan of blogging because it was originally linked to kids who didn't have much else to do but tell everyone of their public life.

But then more people began using it for productive purposes, and today blogging has become a means to broadcast your thoughts to the world. The Chinese have a tradition of doing this called Bi Ji. So moving ahead into the new century, I figured I could use the modern bi ji to help share my views.

So why? Well this motivation to make my message heard is because of an afternoon tea I had with a group of older "young Singaporeans." And I explained my "spark" theory to them. Too often we complain how dissatisfied we are we life here in Singapore, but no one does much.

Some of us argue that by joining the PAP we can change the way things are. But I argue that once you move into the power structure you lose the motivation to "rock the boat." Why? Well firstly you see things from the government points of view, and when pragmatism meets idealism, as old Frank Sinatra put it, something's gotta give. Also you become part of the structure that wants to maintain the status quo, too often we've seen young promising Singaporeans with many reformist ideas who join the ruling party and then end up toning down a lot.

How about the Opposition parties? Same reason as the PAP. Most political parties try to emulate the PAP by trying to recruit "scholars and professionals." So how different can they be from the party in White? Furthermore you cannot change things once you become the government. There is an overriding concern to maintain the status quo again.

So the top-down approach does not seem to me to be the right answer. So how about the bottom-up attack plan? Well that's a good plan of attack, in my opinion. I take inspiration from Gandhi and also from grassroots movement in the United States. Reform happens at the bottom! Before Gandhi returned to India, the Congress Party was happy to eat off the scraps of the British Raj. But once the Great Man came back, he excited the masses by doing simple things like spinning his won clothes, making his own salt and most importantly by leaving politics to Nehru and Jinnah. Martin Luther King Jr, also learnt from Gandhi and went down the same road.

Today in the US there are huge grassroots movements. The anti-war movement was sparked by the protests organised by disparate local organisations, but that became a national voice and forced politicians to take side. I've participated in Voter Registration drives with my friends. I've also hung out with the some folks from the Reelect Bush campaign, and it's very much a grassroots sort of thing. Peaceful change happens at the bottom, not the top.

So what are my thoughts on how I can reform my beloved home? By trying to teach others that we, as sons and daughters of Singapore, have a right and duty as citizens. All to often the government and ruling party stresses on our duties but ignore out rights. On the other hand, too many critics stress our rights but ignore our duties. We must be responsible citizens who are treated as such. Singapore has democratic institutions, the rule of law and, hopefully, a growing civil society. We must educate the ill- and mis- informed sons and daughters of Singapore on their role and rights as citizens.

Everyday you hear griping from everyday Singaporeans, but you see little action. What's the point? The government is monolithic and will shut people down the minute they act. True, but the British Raj was more undemocratic and more monolithic, yet a "naked fakir" could bring it to its knees. I can't do it, I have much to lose. Tell that to Ms Aung San Suu Kyi sitting in her house in Myanmar or to Mahatma Gandhi when he was in jail or MLK while he was jailed.

If you want change, go out and make change! Sick and tired of not being able to vote? Put yourself up as a candidate, or talk to other politicians and see if they represent your views. Encourage other people who care about this tiny island to stand up and be counted. Ensure true sons and daughters of Singapore are elected to represent the voice of the people. We gripe about many things, but act little on them. We need to start acting...

Of course many people tell me that I can't make a difference on my own, but I hope to "spark" one or two other people, that's all. Peaceful revolution comes over many years. The Chinese Anarchists understood this and knew also the only way to achieve their world is through education. So here I am advocating that we need to educate the ourselves to our right and duties as Singaporean men and women. We can't change the world in a day, but we sure can plant an oak seed.

Hopefully I've planted a seed in someone throughout my years of talking and explaining myself. This blog is one attempt to "spark" some of the Singaporean netizens out there. If you've been "sparked," help me out by letting others know. If you disagree or have comments, feel free to put it down.

Vox Leo