Well folks, today marks 21 days on the countdown calender to my JC2 prelims.  I will have to take a break to study, and will not be posting any strenuously intellectual content during this time.  It's a pity, because there's so much to keep an eye on, but I trust Singapore will still be safe and sound after my exams, whereas if I'm too distracted by this whole blogging thing, I won't be so safe nor half as sound.  The bad news is that I've fallen sick again, at the worst possible time.  So these next few weeks are not going to be pleasant.  Take care of yourselves folks, and in the meantime, I'd like to draw your attention to this:


I will be insanely privileged to be able to provide a point of view at a small post-play discussion on August 12 (my birthday!), alongside far more experienced and knowledgeable panelists.  More details and ticketing available at the Singapore Theatre Festival website.

Some last thoughts on the issues which have caught my eye over the past few days, and which I will have to discipline myself to keep my mouth shut about for the next weeks.

PAP Can Expect Tougher Fight in Next Election: PM Lee

PM Lee acknowledged at last night's appreciation dinner for retired MPs that the upcoming generation of post-65 voters will not provide an easy walkover for the PAP.  The party will have to work to earn their mandate.  Which is, I feel, a subtle but certain victory of GE 2006.  Opposition Parties showed themselves to be more organized, Singaporeans took it upon themselves to ask searching questions about our leadership in the form of online citizen commentary, and their share of votes was taken down a peg or two to 66.6%.  These things accomplished what a democracy, even a 'guided' one like Singapore's, is supposed to.  They have pushed the party to concentrate on how to better vie for the populace's trust, instead of resting on the complacency of the landslide mandate we saw in GE 2001 (75.3%).

What I am less satisfied about, however, is the fact that the only real plan detailed for how the PAP expects to win this tougher fight had to do with 'leadership renewal' -- having older leaders step aside for younger ones.  True, this was the issue most relevant to a retirement dinner for ex-MPs, as these are the people who will 'step aside'.  But I have also noticed that this leadership renewal has often been lauded as the silver bullet and the saving grace for the PAP's past, present and future successes in press conferences, media releases and interviews.

Leadership renewal is definitely necessary for the PAP's continued success and integrity.  Lingering cadres pose, and have posed, problems of stagnancy and corruption in many  governments, most notably that of the USSR pre-collapse.  But if the PAP is going to focus all its efforts purely on scouting for new talents in the expectation that fresh young faces will work magic on voters, I think it's setting itself up for disappointment.

From my understanding, Singaporeans don't cast their votes depending on how fresh, young and professional the candidates are.  Chiam See Tong, despite having aged 5 years since the last election, managed to increase his mandate.  Indeed, many of the constituencies with the strongest showings, PAP or otherwise, belonged to older and more experienced politicians, not the yuppies.  Allow me to offer just two of the main factors which I believe determine the vote, and comment on them.

Firstly, Singaporeans vote with their feet, and their feet leads them to the dollar.  The PAP has its 66.6% mandate largely because of the 41 years of competence and prosperity we have enjoyed since independence.  As Singapore has (and I must say, with much aplomb) made its transition from Third World to First, it is no longer possible to sustain the stellar growth which has made the PAP so wildly popular. 

As a 1st World country, two of the major challenges we face are rising costs of living and an expanding income gap.  For instance, with regards to income gap: someone recently pointed out to me that Singapore has a very high Gini coefficient.  The Gini coefficient is used to calculate the income inequality of a country.  A Gini index of 0 would mean perfect equality, and an index of 100 means perfect inequality.  I did some research and according to the 2005 UNDP Human Development Index report, Japan, as a positive example of a prosperous society with equity, has a Gini index of 24.9, while the country with the greatest income inequality that I could find was Lesotho, with an index of 63.2.  Singapore has an index of 42.5.  This is unusually high for a developed nation, and puts us way behind India, whose index is miles lower at 32.5, and frankly, when I find out that Singapore's income inequality is in a far worse state than India's, I worry. 

The PAP has always said that a rising income gap is a problem that comes with development and powering the economy ahead.  Well, yes.  But developed countries such as Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, and countless other countries have all dealt better with that problem.  Even the United States, which is widely considered as the prime example of prosperity that comes at the price of extreme income inequality, has less of a problem than we do, with a Gini index of 40.8! But everyone knows there are poor people in the States.  Why are we in Singapore so unaware of those who make up our lower income brackets?

We have managed to quite effectively gloss over the problem so far, but I wonder how long it can continue to fester unaddressed before people start to notice something's wrong.  The PAP will have to find solutions for these new problems in order to continue propagating the idea of success and prosperity to the increasingly discontented masses.  It is not enough to tell us that these are problems which are inevitable -- proper solutions also need to be found, and a Progress Package doesn't cut it.  And if anyone tells me I'm being an unconstructive, cynical, despondent armchair critic, I will scream.  I'm only the messenger.

Secondly, another key reason why the PAP has a strong mandate has to do with the state-linked mainstream media.  These institutions, ranging from the conservative Straits Times to the news agency I bear the most bitterness towards, Channelnewsasia, turn into the voices of the PAP during elections.  Self-censorship rears its ugly head, and suddenly the world is rosy for Singapore, we've never heard of these vulgar things called 'problems', and wide-lens cameras suddenly find themselves unwilling or incapable to capture anything but the small but packed mosh pit of PAP supporters at close range.

The trends so far suggest to us that the PAP has no intention of relinquishing its influence on mainstream media, as the mr brown incident most notably displayed.  I'm not sure how sustainable this tactic is.  This is especially since the PAP has made the decision to leave the Internet largely unregulated.  At present, this may be related to the fact that the Internet does not have the reach nor the influence of mainstream media.  If it isn't a threat, the government feels content enough to leave it be.  But this also means that increasing numbers of Singaporeans may begin to flock online for political discourse and alternative sources of information which represent views that supplement mainstream media that is often skewed towards a pro-establishment perspective. 

The PAP itself recognizes that it is dealing with a new generation of post-65ers who are apparently looking for fresh faces, hence its strategy of leadership renewal.  I wonder if it also recognizes the implications of this realization: that this very same upcoming generation of post-65ers are Net-savvy and blog-literate.  Furthermore, the proliferation of the Internet in Singapore is only going to accelerate.  We need look no further than Intelligent Nation 2015 to realize that Singapore aims, by 2015, to have 90% home broadband usage and 100% computer ownership in households with school-going children (source).  Foreign commentators didn't call GE 2006 the world's first Internet election for nothing.  If any country has both the reason and the means to go online for its information, it's Singapore.

The PAP is faced with several crossroads in this respect.  The one it is least likely to take: liberalization of the media.  Without a drastic change in top leadership or the voting in of an alternative party, this isn't going to happen.  Once something is established, taken for granted, and carried out as standard operating procedure for decades, it is very difficult to impossible to change it, especially if it has worked for the PAP for so long.  The second option is more chilling -- clamp down on the blogosphere.  Okay, you know what, I don't even want to think about that one, and at any rate it's been spoken about to death.  The third option is the status quo, which to all appearances, the PAP is going to pursue.

If so, it will have to learn to deal with the blogosphere (and by this, I don't mean by restricting it -- I mean by responding to it, and monitoring it to get a feel of voter sentiments and groundswell issues), and it will also have to learn how to deal with journalists who push the envelope.  God willing there will be an increasing number of daring professionals in the media.  My experiences suggest there are.

I had no idea I had so much to say about it, and truth be told, I could say more, but I think I've made my point: if the PAP wants to stay engaged, I think it has to come up with something than better than just "leadership renewal".

Southeast Asian lawmakers call for UN action on Myanmar

I am extremely curious as to Singapore's reaction to the statements made by the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus which called for UN sanctions to be imposed on Myanmar and stated that ASEAN "bears primary responsibility for finding a political solution to the problem".  My curiosity is, I confess, heightened by the fact that this issue was raised during the infamous NE dialogue in my school held by the 2nd Perm. Secretary of the MFA, Bilahari Kausikan.  I quote from that entry:

"Does that mean if thousands of people are being slaughtered in Burma, we won't do a thing because it's not in our self interest?"

"Yep."

"But if everyone thinks that way, nothing will be done."

"You're right, and most of the time nothing is done."

Perhaps now that "Southeast Asian lawmakers" are calling for something to be done, instead of a bunch of students in ACJC, we may be persuaded to take a more pro-active stance.  (Or more likely we will keep quiet for as long as we can because it dosn't benefit us to do anything about the situation: out of sight, out of mind).  Chee once caused a huge ruckus about the 'blood money' we earned in Myanmar.  For instance, consider this excerpt from a 1997 article published in The Nation:


For an exchange of letters between the writers of the article and the Singapore Embassy, see here.  To my understanding, those particular investments may have been closed down, but it is no secret that we have economic ties to that genocidal military-backed dictatorship.  See, even Channelnewsasia dares to report it:


So what will it be, Singapore? Our projects and business deals, or participation in the sanctions which AIPMC is calling for?

---

OK.  There's a lot more that I feel compelled to write about; the situation in the Middle East (will fuel the war on terror, continue to pump up oil prices, affect race relations worldwide and further threaten international security if unchecked), the fact that I heard M1-subscribed phones can display your location now as you move around Singapore (who accused me of being paranoid and pointed out that the Cisco tracking device was voluntary in the comments section of the last entry, again?), etc.  But enough is enough, this is an obscenely long entry, and if you read all of it, my hearty congratulations, I couldn't have managed it.  I am going to hit the books, everyone.  G'night :)

I have never known the blogger who went by the moniker KnightofPentacles.  When a couple of friends messaged me and told me that he had passed away unexpectedly in Australia, however, I learned that he was a respected member of the blogging community and the author of this blog: singapore serf.  I took some time to browse through his archived writings and mourn, in my very small and undeserving way, his passing.  I came to know -- belatedly -- a little bit of his life choices, his sense of humour, his engaging prose; just a glimpse into the person that was, and the memory that is.

Reading through some of the older posts made me teary-eyed.  Confession, his inaugural post, talks about his decision to leave Singapore.  Emigration Essay speaks poignantly to anyone who has ever considered leaving Singapore, and anyone who hasn't.  But I think, even though most of his posts spoke to people about emigration, leaving for second chances overseas, and building a better life, what resonated most strongly in his entries was how human he was, how much of a real person there was on the other side of the world, who loved life, and lived life well, with deliberation, and hopes, and plans for the present and the future.

I didn't know this young man personally, or indeed, at all.  At best he is a shadow of a presence, a niggling sensation in the back of my mind that tells me I may have come across references to him, or comments made by him, whilst browsing other blogs and sites.  His friends have that privilege, of having known him.  I am arguably not even in a position to blog or comment about his having passed away.  But I just felt that someone who made an effort to reach out to Singaporeans, should be remembered by those Singaporeans, both in life and after.

And to be honest, this entry isn't here solely to offer my condolences, or a tribute to KoP.  I also felt like I needed to write about it because this incident scared me a little bit.  When I was talking to a friend about it earlier today I said: "Hey, if I die like, in the next three years and they say stuff like -- oh, she lived a full life, and she enjoyed it, and I bet she has no regrets, and so on, do me a favour and tell them: bullshit.  She had things to do.  She wasn't ready to go." I am not ready to go.

Unfortunately, death is not so considerate.  Not to me nor anyone.  My deepest sympathies to the loved ones of KoP, those who had a privilege to know the man whom many watched and admired from a distance, in his life and, where people like me are concerned, in his death.

According to this Channelnewsasia article, Cisco will be launching a nation-wide GPS satellite program this year.  The technology will work something like this: a tracking device is embedded in Person A's cell phone.  Persons B to Z will be able to dial the operation centre and, by means of a PIN number, will be able to learn where A is.  The device will enable Singaporeans "to trace almost anyone, from loved ones to company property".

Is it just me, or is that creepy?

Knowing that somewhere out there, a company has access at every minute to my exact whereabouts, is sufficiently chilling.  The idea of strangers knowing your habits, movements and the places you frequent is already disturbing.  I can't imagine why anyone would subject themselves to that kind of privacy invasion.  Well, wait -- I can hazard a guess.  A teenager may find himself forced by his worried parents to install such a device.  A couple may use it, in the belief that after all, their love will last forever.  A company may issue a mobile phone to a salesman so as to be able to ensure that he is on the ball during office hours.

Even in the most reasonable of circumstances, I foresee problems.  These complications range all the way from the basic to the extreme.  At a basic level, there is a fundamental undermining of trust in human relationships, between mother and son, husband and wife, employer and employee.  The dynamic in these relationships would be determined by the need to preserve knowledge of the other's intents and purposes by a means external to simple communication and mutual faith.  According to that Channelnewsasia article, "Cisco knows it is more than just an electronic system it is selling". Yes, that's true.  But where I differ is where Paul Chong, CEO of Cisco, claims that what they are selling is "peace of mind".  I can't think of anything less peaceful for my mind than the knowledge that I am being watched 24/7 by someone who doesn't trust me enough to do my job, or to be in school, or say, to be faithful.

The extreme circumstances, however, are even more worrying.  One such circumstance could be where a relationship turns sour and suffocating and the device may be used for abusive purposes.  Another possible circumstance is that of privacy invasion on the part of the state.  I trawled the statutes page for laws on privacy.  Unlike in other countries, Singapore has no such act to guard the privacy of its citizens, which most people in other democratic countries consider a basic right.  What I did find instead, was the Infocommunications Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore Act.  The only mention I saw of privacy was in Clause 1(q), where it is the function and duty of the Authority to:


...which is comforting, if I were seeking protection from other people, but if I am concerned about the privacy I am allowed to keep from the state, then I would be worried that the Authority may 'see fit' to release the information howsoever they wish, which would very plausibly include: to the state.  Then, I would be really worried by:

(a) imposing on the Authority, directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court;"

...effectively making any abuse on the part of the Authority impervious to litigation.  And of course, for the last kicker:


Yes I know, I'm not supposed to challenge the supreme benevolence of any kind of public authority.  But there is something to be said, after all, for keeping my business my own, whether it be from Big Brother, or the people around me, as long as I am doing no third party harm.

I wonder if we have fully judged the consequences of Cisco's wonderful new technology.  If it is unpopular, well and good.  But if people start to embrace it like the radical new gadget that it is, then we may be ushering in a host of privacy questions which relate to our physical and emotional well-being, as well as the nature of human relationships.

I am in contact with someone who knows Char personally*, and I was intrigued to hear it mentioned over dinner that his case had been dismissed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor.  This means that the charges no longer stand, and Char is now able to put this whole stressful episode behind him for the better.  I was surprised that the news had not made it to the mainstream media, and I did feel that the public should know.  There was a wave of concern about the affair when it was first reported on June 14 which was likely instrumental in hurrying the case along to the DPP's attention where it was dropped in about three weeks, on July 6th.  Previously, the case had been pending since February, when the charges were first made. 

This is all information I gained when I requested Char's handphone number through our mutual contact and gave him a call, asking Char for permission (that I received) to make the news public on this blog.  After his referral and more research I found that he had already released a brief note about the case dismissal through Gabriel Seah's blog, and I was surprised that the issue had not received more publicity, which I felt it deserved -- let me explain why.

Late last month, I wrote this article urging the charges to be dropped.  I was only one in a great number of bloggers in addition to mainstream press agencies who had picked up on the story.  This was coming on the wave of concern that the Sedition Act was being used to prosecute more bloggers along the themes of racial and religious divisions in society.  In a day and age where Singaporeans are increasingly worried about our levels of online freedom, and particularly in the wake of the mr brown incident, I thought it important to point out that thankfully, the DPP saw sense and reason, and decided to let him off with a warning from the police.  We need to note the incidents where this reason prevails, and the freedom of online expression is allowed to win over, in order to remain clear-headed about the direction of our own discourse and how Singaporean legislation relates to it.

Online commentary is gaining purpose and momentum, and can only continue to do so given the government's response.  Despite the sinister tone of 'light touch', the government has to date kept to its promise of not initiating any kind of crackdown on bloggers.  It is important that we not conflate issues, as is convenient to do, and allow the incidents where bloggers do suffer reprimands (the racist bloggers, Char, and most recently, mr brown) to cow us into tempering our online expression.  Despite the nebulous nature of OB markers, here is a certain predictability about how the government operates that we are able to assemble from precedent.  Racial and religious attacks are OB.  Political disagreement is not.  Mainstream media is OB.  Blogs are not.  Even Lee Boon Yang is careful to reinforce this message:



Disagree as I might with the mr brown incident and MICA's response, I will say one thing for them: they're not changing their tune.  It is my express wish that we are able to discern this, and not fall into the trap of seeing it as some kind of crackdown on bloggers, as this article seems to do.

Learning about the dismissal of Char's case only convinces me further of this.  Let's give credit where it's due :) for now at least, the authorities are pretty much giving bloggers online freedom -- even where the lines are blurred and there is potential violation of established law and precedent regarding sensitive religious issues, as with Char's case.  What we do with that rare freedom is our chance to show how powerfully responsible, and responsibly powerful, the community can be. 

I hope that mr brown, distressed as he may be due to the unexpected suspension of his column, does not shy away from continuing to voice his opinions freely on his blog, as already Lee Boon Yang, on the record and for all to hear, has given him license to do.  Majulah blogosphere, yadda, yadda.

---

Just some highlights of the trip, for my own memory as well as for those curious. 

Well...yeah.  That's myself, Kenneth Nicoll from Scotland, and Chere, another teammate.  But, if you think you've seen everything --

I'm sorry everyone, no championship trophy this year, and I'm very sorry if I've let you guys down.  I know I let myself down a little bit.  Things aren't completely unsalvageable though -- we were semi-finalists, ranking overall 3rd if I am not mistaken, and displacing old hands at the game.  Joshua, Suhas and I were ranked individual 11th, 29th and 16th respectively.  This year's Worlds tournament was the largest ever with 36 countries represented (including Montenegro, who for the very first time was competing internationally as an independent country!) and almost 200 debaters.  We were defeated 4-1 at semi-finals by Australia, who then went on to claim the championship 5-2 by beating Ireland at the grand finals.

I'm still settling in.  More thoughts and pictures will follow, regarding the trip.

In the meantime though, I heard about the Mr. Brown affair while I was overseas and was thoroughly disgusted.  What culture of fear indeed? Some gems of quotes from the MICA letter:


Perhaps MICA should employ better intelligence officers than it presently does if it is still ignorant of mr brown's real name, Lee Kin Mun.  I had thought it was common knowledge, silly me.


How can anyone write this with a straight face? Perhaps our civil service should go back to Democracy 101 - Separation of Powers, where a free and independent media is meant to be upheld as a check of the government.

I've read the mr brown article.  Yes, it's bitter.  No, it's not objective.  Yes, MICA is right to say that rising costs of electricity, or cabs, etc., is due to oil selling at a record $78 a barrel.  But how juvenile, to not be able to take a little criticism.  How petulant, to publicly shame a man who disagrees.  How uncalled for, to countenance his losing his job with Today, because he wrote a satirical piece which didn't give the PAP full glory. 


Hoorah, our national strategy and our nation-building effort is so participative, open and inclusive that I Really Feel Proud To Be a Singaporean!

I feel so proud that I, whilst debating in Cambridge, London and Cardiff, had to endure two and a half weeks of jibes, veiled jokes and open criticisms of Singapore's death penalty, prison conditions, and 'restrictive' regime where 'human rights are being gradually stripped away from its citizens'.  I kid you not, that last bit was actually uttered by the second speaker of the Australian team at the Grand Finals in front of delegates from 36 different countries! Well done, Singapore.  Our national strategy is clearly earning us lots of respect abroad.

The first few times I heard Singapore being joked about or insulted like that, I was so indignant I practically cried.  I want to be able to be proud of my country, damn it.  And I know these ang mohs are speaking from a skewed perspective, that they don't know what it's really like to live in Singapore, and they can't appreciate it because they don't understand it.  But at the same time, I can't say they're wrong.  I can't say hey, wait a minute, there aren't really so many restrictions, it's not so bad, a one party system is great because that one party is open to peaceful discourse.  Because halfway through my trip, I receive an sms informing me that Mr Brown's column has been suspended because of a humorous article on rising costs of living.

So.

Whatever.

I'm Really Proud To Be a Singaporean.

Anyway, even if my trip went a little sour because of the loss and the news that came from home (if they can crack down on one blogger, they can do so on another -- how long do I have, was the question I kept asking myself), it honestly is very good to be home.  I've missed Singapore tons while I was away. Thanks also for visiting even while I was gone :)

At eight thirty p.m. tonight, I will be at the airport, preparing to leave for my two and a half week trip overseas for the World Schools Debating Championships 2006.  Three hours later, I will be watching Singapore and its lights shrink, fade, diminish as the plane bears us up and away. 

There is a strange sensation one undergoes when taking off.  It is as though the floor beneath you is soaring, trembling, pressing upwards from its imprisonment, and yet you -- you have become deadweight, rooted to the earth that is falling away beneath you, your body unwilling to separate itself from the land.  A tension is created between yourself and the vessel of your flight.  It is inevitable that you will leave.  It is unavoidable that you will disconnect with the tarmac.  It is understood that you will soon be high above your motherland in a larger kingdom of imperturbable clouds.

But for those long moments during take-off, everything tells you to stay.

The young bird is afraid to leave its nest, yet it must learn to fly.  Only in flight will it grow, its wings strengthen, its muscles become supple and strong.  Then it will return, and then it will -- one day -- build its own nest, tougher and stronger and far more secure than the cradle of its nascence.

I contemplate this trip with trepidation.  But I welcome it for what it is: an opportunity, one of many, to learn how to fly.  And sometimes, only distance grants us perspective.  Only time and space teach us the meaning of the whole.  Singapore from far away is a small space, a red dot, a blip on the radar of greatness.  From far away it is a toy kingdom built of kids' blocks which, piled on top of one another, form HDB flats, stacked high and made so vulnerable.  Like Lego.  No, like Jenga.  No: like Babel.

I remember watching television shortly after Nomination Day.  The PAP MPs I saw featured were mournfully putting away the beautiful posters, restoring them to their musty cupboards because their constituencies would see walkovers in 2006.  "I am sorry there is no contest," I recall one of them saying.  "I would have liked to see a good fight." Games.  We play games here in Singapore.  Who has the biggest posters, the brightest pamphlets, the best smile, the most garlands? Who will be able to send more supporters in by the busloads? Who will be lucky enough to join the game, to be picked for the team, to get a piece of the action? Games.  But we all know who wins.  It is a tired game.  It is a game that, when taken too seriously, when cared about, will break your heart.

It is a matrix of constructs and programs, of causes and effects.  Caesar, Pharoah, and the latest from Sierra games: Temasek.  How many Bangladeshis would you like to import so you receive a high mark for City Cleanliness? How many Filipinas do you want to have so as to create a Friendly Service Sector? Your citizens are unhappy.  How much money shall you allocate to City Festivals and Racial Harmony Campaigns?

I was a little sad, yet amused and not surprised when I heard.  It reminded me of last year, when I participated in the LTA Book Prize competition.  I submitted an essay and did a presentation on 'Hardware vs. Heartware: Has the LTA achieved both?'.  For my presentation, which the finalists had to deliver in front of the panel of judges at the LTA centre, I went to the nearest MRT station and took a few simple pictures.  I don't have them on my computer any longer, but here's a summary of some of the shots I took:

I took these pictures within ten minutes -- I didn't have to stand around for long at all.  I placed them in a Powerpoint presentation, concluded that the LTA had done admirably in terms of hardware, and tried its best when it came to heartware, but Singaporeans just aren't doing their part.  I even composed a cheesy song that complained about it (I'll spare you the lyrics).  I guess the essence of the whole affair was that we are far too caught up in the roads, buses and trains of our daily lives to care about the person sharing the journey.  We're always on the move, always thinking about our next destination, always trying for something.  We forget who's queuing up beside us, who's also trying to wend their way along the many routes we have at our common disposal.

There are plenty of roads to success in Singapore, and most of the time the journey is comfortable.  But there are those who can't find a seat, who are handicapped, who are on the fringes of the jostling crowd, the outside looking in.  And well, sometimes it's not just all about who got there first, and who could elbow more people out of the way.  Too bad the Singa lions they've stuffed and the million-dollar campaigns they've funded haven't seemed to help Singaporeans understand that.

Oh well -- just my brief thoughts on the matter this time.  KTM posted a good article on Stomp about it that asks more piercing questions.  Speaking of Stomp though, it's a little funny how their bloggers are assigned topics.  It does remind me of the GP (General Paper) essays I have to do for homework.  They're even phrased like GP exam questions.  'Entrapment - legal, yes, but ethical? Discuss.' I thought Dawn Yang said in the ST article that the bloggers were being given free rein.  So far it doesn't sound like it, unless you count xiaxue being able to use four letter words in her entries.  Her writing is fun and feisty, even if I'm a bit uncomfortable with her language - but that's her prerogative, and ST's.  What I really found hilarious though, was one user jennnnnn (that's six 'N's, count them) who left a comment saying: "And cut out all the vulgarities please. May I remind you that this is a government website that you are blogging for, and that you should at least have the decency to censor it off."

I'm still laughing about that.  Hee, goodnight.