 |
|
Friday, June 23, 2006
BBQ is back home. I found her cuddling up with the big, fluffy, very handsome white cat from the 2nd floor. If she'll have babies at least they'll be good looking! Whew...can sleep in peace now.
Posted at 02:04 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
MM Lee says China will allow yuan to appreciate but not at expense of growth...
...and again I agree. I mean, obviously. But what I find far more astonishing than MM Lee's prediction of China's behavior is his prescription for it: "They are not going to have any sudden shift in their position. You may have to impose sanctions on them - whether 20 per or 25 per cent. I do not see them leaping. They will go up gradually and slowly without disrupting their growth."
- MM Lee, as quoted by this Channelnewsasia article
Erm, can we not anyhow go around recommending imposing sanctions on China? Perhaps I'm interpreting his remark in a wrong fashion, but that definitely raised my eyebrows. Of course, MM Lee did qualify his remark by saying that China has 'done i ts sums' and knows that tariffs will not significantly harm them. But even then he does sound just a little bit condescending:
"I would say it is a safe bet to assume that they now understand market economics, not as well as the Fed guys or the Bank of England. They are well advised by the World Bank and other central bankers."
Perhaps I'm just reading too much into things and have too much time on my hands. Well, this is my last post for a couple of days. Time to get more sleep - I've been sick lately and it's worrying. I don't fancy a 14 hour flight to London with a blocked nose and a headache. Cheers all.
Posted at 11:54 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
PM Lee in Australia and New Zealand
According to Alex Au of Yawningbread.org, 'Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has jeopardised Singapore's relations with Australia for the sake of his own party politics'. While I agree that PM Lee's remarks, cited in that article, may have been judgmental and a little insensitive, I do challenge the impression that PM Lee has jeopardised these relations. I think at the end of the day, Australia may not like us very much - or at all - but it is still our 11th largest trading partner and wants the benefits we can bring to them much more than it cares about whether or not PM Lee thinks they should be governed by a single authoritarian party too. I've come to the sad conclusion that Western nations and their media in particular may make a lot of noise about Singaporean politics but at the end of the day they don't really care, lah. And neither do we care what they say about us. You know what sticks and stones can do that words can't. But in any case, Au's article is an engaging read, do check it out.
Posted at 11:32 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Thursday, June 22, 2006
MM Lee Says North Korea Is Not a Threat to Southeast Asia...
...and I agree. Am I the only one who thinks that the furore over North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs is one big, tired, outmoded, dead-horse scam? Let's face it, we can't stop them from attaining nuclear weapons any more than we could stop India and Pakistan. The only two differences between the former bloc and the latter is (i) the latter are US allies and the former are hostile to the superpower, and (ii) the latter are not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, while the former are. Those reasons are why India, today, can happily warm its seat on the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency - irony of ironies! - which is supposed to enforce the NPT. It's also why India can sign agreements with the US to actually share civilian nuclear technology with the acknowledgment that India has an existing military nuclear regime, but Iran and North Korea are the 'axis of evil' instead. So the question is: what now? I believe North Korea and Iran are adamant on pursuing their nuclear weapons programs for two main reasons. Firstly, aggressive US foreign policy. Ideological differences and a history of tension dating back to the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict have set these states on a defensive backfoot against the Western hegemon. The March 2003 invasion of Iraq can only have set alarm bells ringing for them as well. The perception of being under siege by the Western powers has more than likely precipitated the rapid arms build-up. But at the same time, this very reason is the disincentive for them to go too far, or to ever actually use their nukes. Ahmadinejad, for all his ravings, is no fool. He knows if he ever does launch against Israel, the US will invade in the blink of an eye. Israel is staying put on the map. North Korea has not only the Western powers to be wary of, it also has watchdogs in the form of Japan, another US ally, and China, etc. Neither North Korea nor Iran is going to press any red buttons any time soon because the incentive for building up a nuclear arsenal in the first place simultaneously acts as a disincentive to ever use it. It's like Cold War mentality all over again: they'll avoid direct confrontation at all costs because they know they will lose. But the second reason why they are adamant on pursuing their nuclear weapons programs is the one that has caused me much consternation: the promise of civilian nuclear energy and economic engagement in return for disarmament. Here is where I find myself mystified as to why we continue to dangle carrots in front of them, proving that it's profitable for them to persist in their nuclear regimes and occasional displays of military prowess as it gains them the attention of the international community and the promise of more foreign aid with which to build nuclear plants. On the first level, I very much doubt such a promise works. When we started planning the two light water reactors for North Korea back in the 90's, Kim Jong Il rewarded us with a Taepodong-1 long-range missile launch in August 1998 that flew over northern Japan. We immediately retracted our promise of the reactors, and today, what are we using as a carrot for disarmament again? A light water reactor. Yet North Korea is today, again threatening to launch another test missile, albeit riddling the event with coy delays. The track record of using civilian nuclear energy as bait for dismantlement is hardly inspiring. On the second level, not only is it a failed disincentive, it is actually an incentive for rogue states to continue stringing along the international community because it gets them attention and results in the Western states falling all over each other trying to come up with lucrative reasons to stop their development. The EU and the 5+1 Group (Security Council members and Germany) have come up with attractive economic and security incentives for Iran to disarm. To me, this sounds like the perfect reason for a state, Iran or otherwise, to use the threat of nuclear development to gain concessions from the international communities, meanwhile using delays, threats, empty promises, and mixed signals to keep them on their toes, continuing to try to come up with something impressive. I suppose the chance that all this might actually be successful this time is attractive enough to keep trying. But I can't help but wonder what would happen if we called their bluff one day. Do whatever you want, and suffer the consequences. What will Ahmadinejad or Kim have to rail at us with, then? I'm tired of my newspapers being filled with reports of these two states hijacking the attention of the international community and playing games with everyone.
A digression before I go to bed. My cat is having her sexual awakening or something like that, and has started yowling at full volume depressingly late into the night. She wants a boyfriend! :( I don't want to lose my cat to some horny furball! Should I let her out in the void deck to find a mate and will she come back to me if I do? I miss my innocent sweetie: ...I just let her out. I hope BBQ comes back to me soon. Maybe with little babies. I guess I should get her sterilized :( Goodnight!
Posted at 11:35 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Blogger 'Char' being investigated under Sedition Act
This is a fascinating issue for me that I've been meaning to comment on for a while. While I agreed that the vehement racism of the anti-Muslim bloggers warranted legal action, I think that was largely spawned out of an instinctive disdain for bigots and extremists who have no respect for others. Now that Char is being investigated for images that were satirical/insulting to the Christian faith posted on his blog, however, I find myself more vaguely amused by the uproar stirred up by this episode and concerned for this blogger than angry.
I think it's because I am, myself, a Christian. To me, faith is intensely personal. It is tried and tested, influenced, shaped, challenged and confirmed by exogenous factors, but at the end of the day it is set apart. In Corinthians II 6:17, the Bible says: "Come out from among them and be ye separate", and in John 18:36, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world" - the tribulations the Church may undergo in its manifestation as a physical institution of society are unsurprising, for Christians are called to live a different life from those around them. Furthermore, tribulations come both from without and within. Even those in the Church will disappoint us. Priests may embezzle money, pastors may commit adultery; it is little wonder if we are to submit to the Scriptural acknowledgment that all men are sinners saved only by grace. If we were to let a few cartoons on the Net shake our faith and make us angry, horrified and/or disturbed, then well - we shouldn't. Salvation is between God and what's in your heart. God will judge, not men.
Which is why I say: let Char go. Let him publish what he wants; either he will be held accountable to a higher authority or, even if he doesn't believe in judgment in the afterlife (I have read that he is a 'free-thinker') he will have to deal with the flak that comes from everyone who has read his blog and found him to be crude and offensive, just like anyone does when they run the risk of putting up their opinions all over the place. The Net has its ways of dealing with that. Char didn't post anything new, after all. If you were to do a Google image search of 'Jesus cartoon' you would come up with numerous images depicting Jesus in offensive ways. Are we going to go through a crisis of faith because those images are up on the Net in full view? Not I. I'm simply going to click the little box at the top right-hand corner marked 'x', and close the blooming window. How should Christians deal with this episode? Matthew 18:21-22 says:
'21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven.'
The law may not be so forgiving. To my understanding the Sedition Act deems the intention of the person irrelevant to the seditious tendency of the publication, as seen in this Very Long Clause:
For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.
I may be reading it wrong of course, it's hard to tell. I am so not going to study law at university. The point is this: it is possible that Char will be charged and sentenced even if he put up the cartoons not to incite disaffection among the races, but simply as a joke, or a means of petty retaliation against the person who e-mailed him asking him to take it down. But will doing so help to breed more contentment and harmony in our society or simply highlight the schisms and present us as a community of factions, with each faction paranoid in its defensiveness against an offender with a contrary belief? Yes, there are lines which should not be crossed, but I am far more inclined to treat this as a tasteless joke. Just as I would not turn my friends and acquaintances in for the countless racist jokes I have heard told, I also would not convict Char for his transgression. It is more important to cure the root of the problem than its symptom. The root of the problem is a community that, for all its posters and moral education textbooks, is perhaps not as mature and bonded as it would like to believe. The Net has thrown some of the ugliness into the spotlight where previously it would have silently simmered beneath the surface. So now what? We could hit back, a wounded animal, with laws, prison cells and sedition acts - or we could take a longer, closer look at the problem. Most likely it should be a mix of both. To me, laws still need to be there to punish bigots who may incite hate. But what Char did was not the work of a hateful anti-Christian extremist. I dare say he's a young man who made a mistake and learnt his lesson. Now maybe it's time to move on.
Posted at 10:47 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
| | Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 20 June 2006 1938 hrs
PAP has the people's support because of leadership renewal: PM Lee
By Channel NewsAsia's May Wong in Auckland, New Zealand
|
AUCKLAND, New Zealand : Voters get bored with old faces and want fresh ideas, so it is critical that the People's Action Party (PAP) bring in new talents in order to continue to move forward.
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says its ability to do that has been one reason why the PAP has been able to keep the people's support, adding the party can never have enough people to be in succession for political office.
Mr Lee was speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his official visits to Australia and New Zealand.
Mr Lee said he sought the views of the New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark on leadership renewal.
And she related that she too faced difficulties.
"If you don't have new faces and it's the same face, the same team, after one or two elections, people will get tired of you. They'll want a change to a new team. So if we want to continue to move forward, then our team has to change, even though the logo is the same. That is critical," said PM Lee.
Mr Lee says the government is working with the post-65ers on the team to reach out to the new generation of voters.
He understands that the government will lose touch with the party if it stays unchanged. So Mr Lee says scouting for new talents is extremely important.
And Mr Lee learned more about Australia and New Zealand's political systems during his visits there.
He cited how the governing party sets itself apart from the opposition by disagreeing in almost everything.
With that example, Mr Lee explains why it is only natural the PAP differentiates itself from the opposition parties, such as giving HDB priority to PAP wards.
"It's necessary because without that, the system cannot work. This is because if everything is the same, then the opposition will say that it doesn't matter, they (PAP) will have to take care of you anyway. So vote for us and you're going to have a PAP government," said PM Lee.
"If you look at how other country's electoral systems work, parliamentary democracies and different circumstances, I think you'll have a better appreciation of where we're different and what our advantages are and how we can keep it," he added.
Before heading back to Singapore on Wednesday, Mr Lee also met members of the business community and Singaporeans operating companies in New Zealand.
- CNA /ls
This article did not so much enlighten as it did reinforce many of my misgivings about the culture of governance in Singapore. Take this excerpt:
"...Mr Lee explains why it is only natural the PAP differentiates itself from the opposition parties, such as giving HDB priority to PAP wards.
"It's necessary because without that, the system cannot work. This is because if everything is the same, then the opposition will say that it doesn't matter, they (PAP) will have to take care of you anyway. So vote for us and you're going to have a PAP government," said PM Lee."
I took the liberty of deciphering this ra ther cryptic remark, and if anyone feels I err in my interpretation, do feel free to disagree. But it sounds to me like PM Lee is saying that the PAP must be different from the opposition, hence gives HDB priority to PAP wards. Otherwise, there would be no difference between voting for the Opposition and voting for the PAP. That is why voters in Aljunied would be able to vote for the Opposition and still have the PAP in power.
With all due respect, there are some comments I feel need to be made about this mentality.1. There are many ways the PAP can distinguish itself from the Opposition without the use of preferential upgrading. Off the top of my head I refer to: sound economic policies, care for the residents, knowledge of their needs, amount of time spent in the grassroots, gentlemanly conduct, detailed plans for the future -- gee, sounds like what's needed to get a party voted in for any democracy. Using upgrading as a carrot, or perhaps a stick, depending on which way you look at it, does indeed distinguish the PAP from the Opposition -- but on what grounds? Does it make them different because they are necessarily a better team fielded, or because they have access to manymanymanymany money in budget surpluses? Should the results of general elections be dependent on who has a better plan for the residents, or who has access to more cash?
2. There is nothing wrong with the people voting in the Opposition because they feel secure that the PAP will remain the ruling party. If the people decide they want a strong, intelligent party in power and yet have opposition members in parliament to act as a check for the ruling party's decisions, and to provide transparency to the processes of Parliament, what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Even if we suspend our disbelief and for one moment suspect that if the PAP does not use upgrading as a threat, Singaporeans will vote an Opposition party into power and that party will somehow bungle things up and ruin everything we have slogged to build in the last 40 years, then hey -- we will learn, and the results of the next election will be different. I don't believe for an instant that Singaporeans are too dumb to choose the government that best brings improvements to their welfare. I also don't believe that the PAP will run away, tail between their legs, if they happen to lose an election. I have far more faith in them as a party. They'll be back the next election stronger than ever. But all that is if we even suppose the remotest chance of the PAP being defeated in the polls with the present line-up of Opposition candidates.
3. Such policies do not help democracy, they distort it. A democratic election should be won on the basis of what will be done with budget surpluses, not who has access to them. We should go to the polling box thinking: tomorrow, if these surpluses were in the hands of Low Thia Khiang, would he accomplish more for Singapore with them than if they were in the hands of Eric Low? We shouldn't be thinking: oh no, Low Thia Khiang will not have any surpluses to deal with, therefore even if he has better ideas he will never be able to implement them. The plans that these men have for the future should be the determinant in deciding who should be elected into power.
The Singaporean system has many such distortions. For instance, government-affiliated individuals are at the helm of our press. This compromises the daring and willingness of journalists to report against the PAP during elections in particular. Our knowledge of the outside world today is severely limited to what we hear and read in the media. Little wonder then, that Denise Phua can be so shocked by the amount of anti-PAP content on the Internet. It is the only medium so far where government involvement has been minimal, leading to the emergence of outlets for groundswell opinion. To her, or to anyone little exposed to the Internet, it would seem that the PAP has an infallible mandate, and that all is well and dandy in our sunny city-state. That is a distorted impression, because of the government-weighted material and the monopoly that SPH holds over our media industry. That's why in other liberal democracies, the arguments stand for an independent press and the separation of powers. It's not some alien Western concept that we should reject as being un-Asian and non-Singaporean, it is a thoroughly sensible check and balance mechanism meant to guard and enrich democracy from such distortions.
So there. I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive, but I just felt there are some statements which should not go unchallenged and simply taken at face value as the God-given truth. Yes, it is true that Singapore is a unique democracy, and in some ways are the better off for it. I consider it a blessing that we have a strong, smart party in power. But the question is if they will continue to form our government because of how strong and smart they are, or because they have managed to surround themselves with distortions of the system that are friendly to themselves, such as a government-influenced press, and access to manymanymanymany money to be used for the upgrading of HDB flats. I'm really disappoin ted that they're going to persist in that policy. Singapore's money or PAP money? To treat it as money to be used to further the PAP's political interests is only going to alienate voters from the party. I like to think we don't only want 'fresh young faces' -- we want fairness as well.
Depressing.
Posted at 09:07 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The matches are kicking off, and Singaporeans have their eyes -- and wallets! -- peeled on the various flags that comprise the competitors of Germany 2006. Like most people, I'm excited at the onset of World Cup fever. But as I watch the oceans of spectators painted in their national colours, waving their countries' flags and roaring out their national anthem, a little voice in the back of my head makes its ugly appearance once in a while, asking that guiltily uncomfortable question: So...where's Singapore?
In 1999, the Goal 2010 project was launched with great aplomb. It stated in no uncertain terms that its aim was to secure World Cup qualification by the year 2010. A mere four years after, the project was scrapped -- it was renamed 'Football Excellence', a far less catchy and ambitious moniker. Since then, the issue of World Cup qualification has been rather waffled over, with the stance morphing into its present, "Qualifying in 2010 would be nice, but there's still 2014 and 2018!" To this end, we have resorted to our all-time favourite tactic: recruit foreign talent. Creatively entitled the Singapore Foreign Talent Scheme, it has thus far gained us Daniel Bennett (England), Mirko Grobovac (Croatia), Egmar Goncalves (Brazil), Itimi Dickson and Agu Casmir (Nigeria). The extent of its success is disputable, considering our latest exit from the Asian Zone qualifying rounds of the World Cup where we lost 5 out of 6 rounds. Not a heartening result, and one that distances us further from our dream of Goal 2010...oh sorry, I mean, Football Excellence.
Elsewhere in our sporting scene, however, we have perhaps had more success. The Committee on Sporting Singapore in 2001 set themselves the target of being one of Asia's top 10 sporting nations by the magic year, you guessed it, 2010. There, our efforts to lure in foreign talent seem to be paying off a little better. Li Jiawei (China), Ronald Susilo (Indonesia) and Jing Junhong (China) are memorable examples. But it seems each time these talents score big for Singapore, their achievements are overcast by debate on their suitability to represent Singapore because of their previous nationalities. Understandably, questions will always arise such as: where do their loyalties lie? To themselves? Is that why they changed nationalities -- so they can play internationally where previously in their homelands they would not have qualified? For the lucrative contracts? Is that why Agu Casmir ran off so quickly after he was dropped from the national squad, not exactly nursing a broken heart? After all, he hastened to sign up with Indonesian club Persija Jakarta. But take heart, he bears Indonesia no loyalty either; he went AWOL to go for trials in Russia, England and Canada instead. This is the man to whom we gave $50 000 as an 'incentive' after we won the Tiger Cup win in January 2005. By the way, he spent every cent. Are these the actions of someone loyal to Singapore and appreciative of the privilege of representing our nation?
I guess those are the questions which cause me to be helplessly sceptical when I read about foreigners' achievements for our nation. There's a lot of taint and doubt to overcome in those circumstances. But I've never been a bigot nor xenophobic. I realise that our very country is built on the backs of immigrants, 'foreigners' streaming into Singapore to seek better opportunities for themselves, not for the sake of some nationalist abstraction. Those immigrants are in fact our ancestors. And today, Singapore continues to be a bastion of free opportunity. I just find myself struggling to appreciate that emotionally as well as intellectually. Perhaps it is a success for nation building that I feel affronted when we buy talents who have no affinity to our country aside from the flag they have emblazoned on their sports jackets. I continue to tell myself that each and every foreigner, besides being under the label of 'foreign talent', is also a person unto him/herself, with different motivations for their desire to represent our country. Some of them are in it for the money, others are here at least partly because they have lived here for a longtime and developed a real appreciation -- perhaps even a love? -- for Singapore. I think that's what's really important. Not where you were born, not the colour of your skin, not the number of digits to your salary, but whether or not you really are a proud representative of the Republic of Singapore. Foreign-born and local talents alike can aspire to this. I know I do. Come July, five teenagers will be debating in Wales as Team Singapore. I don't imagine this will gain much attention. Debates are far less invigorating to watch than soccer matches. No debate ever got thousands of feet stomping, the drums banging, the voices soaring. But -- wow. We will be Singaporean. And we will do our level best not to disgrace that. The prospect of sitting at a table with the Singaporean flag draped over it is as thrilling as it is humbling. When the World Cup Finals are being screened in Cardiff on the evening of 9th July, that little voice that asks 'where's Singapore?' will be answered by a louder voice saying ' Singapore is right here: now do her justice'. It is time for our 110% to be given. Singapore has a decent track record in the Worlds Schools Debating Championships, having reached the semi-finals in South Africa 2001 and the finals in Peru 2003. Jonathan Pflug was ranked Best Speaker of the tournament -- effectively making him World No. 1 -- in 2001, and in 2002 Rohini Singh was ranked 2nd. To my knowledge the Singapore team has never ranked below number 10 since we first took part in 1995. We have beaten nations with millions more native speakers and talents to their name, so we're not half bad. WSDC is admittedly a small tournament comprising of 37 English-speaking nations. It's not earth shattering. But we really will do our best to live up to our predecessors. We will be leaving at the end of June for two and a half weeks. For that duration, and for the two weeks or so until we depart, I won't be posting so much. Happy World Cup viewing, and in your free moments, perhaps just one or two of them, spare a thought, a good wish or a prayer for a Singaporean team somewhere out there in that big wide world, competing under our national flag. And regardless of whether we win or do badly, I promise you the spirit of love for Singapore under which the tournament will be undertaken is world-class. As for 2010, who knows what it will bring? Perhaps we'll qualify for the World Cup. Perhaps we'll be one of Asia's top 10 sporting nations. Perhaps not. Singaporeans always want results, results, results. How many bronzes, silvers, golds? Got A*, or just A? Why just A? Stupid is it?! Relax lah. We don't need medal tallies to make ourselves feel good. They would be nice, yes, but the objective of having Singapore represented in international competition has ever been to empower us with a sense of identity and passion to want to see our country do well. As long as we hold on to that, as long as we don't let our quest for medals supercede our quest for identity, as long as we don't sell our souls in our bid to let anyone and everyone play for Singapore if they can wield a racquet or kick a ball, I frankly don't care what's happening in 2010. It's enough to be assured that in four years, we'll still be Singaporean -- and proud to be. Though I've rambled a lot in this article, for which I apologize, that's the most important message I have for today. Singapore boleh.
Posted at 02:03 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Monday, June 12, 2006
I've been insanely busy these last few days, particularly with the pace and intensity of training picking up. I apologize for the irregularity of posts -- unfortunately things can only get worse from here. Here are just a few thoughts on a couple of issues before bedtime then.
Potong Pasir and Hougang to receive lift upgrading by 2015
Today's Sunday Times article citing Mah Bow Tan's statement on upgrading marked a definite improvement from Goh Chok Tong's lament that the two opposition wards will become 'slums' in the 1997 General Election. On behalf of the government, Mah issued the promise that all constituencies will have lifts that stop at every floor by 2015. It will be interesting to see if this is a 'pledge' the government will keep. It irks me though, that the campaigning tactic of preferential upgrading, i.e. PAP wards first, will continue to be practiced. If the IPS analysis of GE 2006 has shown us that people value fairness of governance and checks and balances far above the issue of upgrading, then why is the PAP still hanging onto such an anachronistic approach? Not only is it alienating and ethically suspect, it also seems counter-productive to the criteria that Singaporeans cite as paramount in their election of a government.
On the other hand, this also means that in GE 2011, Hougang and Potong Pasir residents will have this promise to remember: regardless of which way they vote in 2011, their lifts will be upgraded by 2015. So even though I note with regret the fact that such tactics will persist, I also view the press statement with some optimism -- if Singapore remembers this promise in the next GE, it means that if lift upgrading is used as any kind of threat, it will be a phantom menace. :)
MOE to consider bringing in native speakers as English teachers
Generally when the government announces when it is 'considering' doing something, it's usually an oncoming inevitability (remember 'considering' the casino issue?). Bringing in native speakers is a step which may be a thorny issue, seeing as foreigners will be 'usurping' locals in the sensitive role of teaching our young. But I think on the whole, it will help us far more than it will harm us, particularly if we manage to retain our standards in grammar and spelling, i.e. written English, while simultaneously improving on what's most important -- our standards of spoken English. We perform better than most American students for the former, I believe, but we lose out dreadfully when it comes to the spoken word. Hopefully native speakers will help our children become more confident communicators with strength and clarity to the articulation of their opinions. Furthermore, we would do well to incorporate not just personnel, but also their expertise and opinions with regards to the teaching of the English language, and to use that input to revise the curriculum to allow for more discussive and participatory lessons which start from an early age. The formative years are essential to building high standards of communication.
On a more personally indulgent note: I suppose I'm one of those Singaporeans who want to have their cake and eat it too, but I'll be severely nostalgic if one day, my presently-unborn, then-to-be six year old kid runs in the door and goes, "Mommy, mommy, check it out, I had this totally awesome day!" I'm a sentimental sucker for Singlish and I have no qualms in using it in my everyday communication. I hope it shan't ensue that we'll have to sacrifice it like we did dialects in order to achieve 'world-class' English usage. Perhaps a hybrid accent may be birthed, or a schizoid situation where a Singaporean can switch from Singlish to proper English at will, which is what I presently do. It all depends on the breadth and depth to which the government decides to reform how we learn and use the language. But regardless of what happens, Singlish for me will always mean the apologetic "sorry hor, uncle" as I fumble in the dark backseat of a cab for loose change; the bright relief of being myself when I encounter a fellow Singaporean in a foreign land; the intimate smile that can only be exchanged between speakers of the same language; the common idiosyncracies of the tongue -- the winsome dialogue between countrymen.
And on that note, goodnight!
Posted at 01:08 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Upgrading: Hougang and Potong Pasir
An online petition was recently brought to my attention. It calls for upgrading to be afforded to Hougang and Potong Pasir with some impassioned pleas I truly felt moved to read. To show your support, click here or visit:
In this light, I am re-posting an article I wrote on April 13th regarding upgrading. I also strongly urge everyone to press for upgrading to be given to the residents of these two constituencies. GE 2006 saw them standing up for something they deemed more important than lifts, playgrounds and shiny paint. They have shown us the meaning and possibility of democracy superceding economic bully tactics. They have given us a glimpse of sheer joy in our politics in celebrating the return of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang to their constituencies. They have stayed with those who have a heart for serving them well, not quit for better opportunities elsewhere, and in so doing perhaps have shown us more of the Singaporean spirit than can be found in our NDP parades and Social Studies textbooks.
Now what are we going to do for them in return?
The PAP has promised to re-look its tactics and consider a 'softer' approach. This is an excellent time for them to back up their words with action.
Debunking Myths - 13/04/06
First of all, kudos to MediaCorp for airing the TV forum between journalists and MM Lee Kwan Yew last night, a forum that was memorable in particular because one fellow actually said "We just think the PAP is playing by unfair rules and is power crazy, what do you have to say to that?". I found that vastly amusing and it was a nice cap to my day. Unfortunately I proceeded to become irritated when the issue of Hougang and Potong Pasir arose and we heard the same, tired old argument in response from MM Lee about how a party has the right to favour its supporters.
What truly irks me many a time is how the PAP obfuscates and convolutes matters with their dogmatic legalism and seemingly rational rhetorical sophistry. This hides the heart of the matter and twists it into something else -- into self-serving, small-minded, petty manipulation of words to make it seem like they really are perfectly justified in everything they do. Let's look at what they've been saying about why they can effectively deny Potong Pasir and Hougang upgrading.
A party has the right to favour its supporters, just like a business would.
The reason why a business would favour its supporters is because of self-interest. The business, or indeed most other institutions, believes that it can achieve its own goals most effectively if it rewards those who are in favour of their organisation. The government is crucially and fundamentally different. Out of all institutions, it should be the one least characterized by self-interest. This is because the first and foremost duty of the government is to serve the people. A political party who is willing to sacrifice the interests of the citizens of the country in order to maintain its own political grip over the nation has shattered and perverted its priorities. Such a political party is not one who gains its mandate through a willingness and dedication to all Singaporeans. It is a political party who gains its mandate through favouritism and discrimination, alternating according to whichever best serves its own purposes and future.
Potong Pasir and Hougang residents deserve to be treated differently because they have made their choice to sacrifice a better living for the sake of having Opposition rule -- because of this choice, they are different from the rest of Singapore.
When a government takes into consideration the welfare of a nation it must take into consideration the welfare of all its peoples, regardless of their beliefs, as long as these beliefs do not jeopardize other people. The government's duty of care extends to everyone and does not have the right to discriminate against their moral and political choices. For a parallel example, let's just take their stand to its logical conclusion. If governments all around the world were to say tomorrow: "We will not upgrade the houses of Muslim-Malays", we would instinctively reject that as a repulsive and unjust policy, because all Muslim-Malays are entitled to their beliefs, their moral creeds and choices, and they are all part of our "One nation, one people, one Singapore". So the government must serve them too, if they have any respect whatsoever for their dignity and autonomy as human beings. Similarly here; Potong Pasir and Hougang residents have made a conscious and informed choice which has to do with their belief system. Their reasons may be varied -- perhaps they want more political vibrancy. Perhaps they feel more comfortable with a friendly face in power. Perhaps they genuinely think the Opposition candidates are more sincere and qualified. Regardless of their reasons, they are exercising their civic rights and liberties as citizens of a democracy to prioritize these reasons over other considerations. The government cannot discriminate against them because of this. Regardless of their choices, they are our citizens! And the government needs to take care of all our citizens. They need to protect all of us from terrorism, be concerned about how much can all of us afford healthcare, be willing to provide jobs for all of us. That's because we are one country. Such a discriminatory policy is only going to divide us along territorial lines, and insinuate that some people are more deserving citizens/all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
We know something is gravely wrong with democracy when people are penalized for having any power whatsoever in it. The whole point of having choices is that your choice matters, and can bring about your best welfare. Democracy becomes poisoned when people are punished for participating, punished for daring to think of themselves as members of a functioning democracy.
We need some new answers from the PAP, but first we need some new questions from ourselves, to ourselves, about what it means to be a citizen, and what it means to be a human being. Do you instinctively, in your mind and heart, without the trappings of their party rhetoric and official stands and legal codes, feel that what they are doing is ethical? Respectful to the human being? Fair, just, with the interests of the people foremost? We need moral outrage. We need to care because no one else will. The international media will write cursory reports on it and tsk-tsk behind our backs, but they are powerless to institute fundamental change. Look at how The Economist gets sued for damages each time they so much as mention a whiff of nepotism. If Singaporeans in Bukit Timah, or Marine Parade, don't care about what happens to Singaporeans in Potong Pasir or Hougang, then I have serious doubts on how much they truly deserve and appreciate their citizenship. Yes, we may point fingers at the PAP, but I think we first need to care. Are we too jaded to bother? Is it just an insider, intellectual ha-ha poor-people joke? If so, then that's a sad possibility to contemplate.
I wrote this article in the run-up to the elections. If you'd read the last paragraph, I suspect you might detect my frustration with how the people around me were responding, or rather, seemed not to be responding to the issue of upgrading. It seemed that mainstream media skirted carefully around the issue, and if letters were sent to the forums I didn't see any of them published. Were we all afraid to stand up and say: hey, wait, this is just wrong? Please take this chance now to lobby for what should be a basic entitlement of the members of those two constituencies. This is the least we can do to send a loud, clear signal to the PAP: Singaporeans think, feel and act a little more deeply than just for money.
GE 2011 will simply have to be run another way.
Posted at 11:55 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
And Just Before I Leave For School...
...I notice this morning's copy of the newspaper. Chee Soon Juan and his fellow party members served with summons for speaking in public without a licence, and Chee Siok Chin's application faces dismissal because she did not pay her $5000 deposit ahead of the deadline. Now too late to pay. Tragic. I go to the hawker centre and talk to the auntie selling hor fun and the next door chicken rice uncle, considered speaking in public without a licence or not? As for Chee Siok Chin, I predicted her appeal would never survive in court. Guess it won't even get to see the light of day in court after all. But why not simply withdraw and re-submit it, this time paying ahead of the deadline? Are there more legal loopholes I'm missing?
Nothing like a little Opposition suffering to brighten my morning.
Posted at 12:34 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
|
|
 |
gayle goh
profile
Recommended Posts
Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam
worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak
friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko
shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)
disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.
|
|
|
