Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Absence

Hi everyone.  I will be in Bangkok from Wednesday to Friday, and I promise I will be back here on Saturday with a proper update :) It was and will be a relaxing break away from posting, especially since the whole let's-tell-Gayle-what-to-do-with-her-future thing was getting just a little bit frustrating.  For the record, by the way, I have not been offered any scholarships from the government and those rumours should stop right about now.  Aanyway.  I will be in Bangkok for a forum organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance with Alex Au of Yawningbread as my co-panellist.  I know some people in particular will disapprove - I can only say that I feel I should do this and that I do have my priorities right, I promise.  Please, please just trust me and allow me to make my decisions in this area if I promise you it won't interfere, that I won't let it get in the way, that it has never gotten in the way of me giving 100% to my other commitments. To anyone else whom that remark seems cryptic to, never mind :) Much love to everyone back home.  I'll see you on Saturday with an article I've been wanting to write for many days now -- the one that was lost when IE crashed.


Posted at 04:45 am by gaylegoh
Spoken (6)  




Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Test!

I hate blogdrive!

Posted at 02:28 am by gaylegoh
Speak  

Quick Note

If the comments are disappearing, etc for you, sorry, I'm just as confused as you are.  The blogdrive server is messing with my head.  No, comment moderation has not been turned on.. I don't think I can even do that.  For me, comments are disappearing and appearing again so hang in there.  Blogdrive has always been unreliable.  Sorry for the shortage of articles as well.  I was in the midst of writing a long one the other day when Internet Explorer crashed, leaving me with nothing (long live Mozilla Firefox).  Then I started writing another one and when I tried to post that, Blogdrive crashed (sigh).  So I'm a little tired and irritated with technology right now.  These problems really need to be managed, sheesh.  Take care all :) and sorry again for any inconvenience.

Posted at 02:07 am by gaylegoh
Spoken (10)  




Wednesday, August 23, 2006
By the Way


Posted at 06:24 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (55)  

Belated Pictures

Rather late I know, but some of you might be interested in these:

The above picture is taken from Zuco's blog, and I hope you don't mind me reproducing it! From left: Tan Tarn How, Alfian Sa'at, Eleanor Wong, Sylvia Lim, myself and Martyn See, at the post-play forum after the Saturday staging of The Campaign to Confer the Public Service Star on JBJ.  There was a healthy crowd in attendance at the National Library, and I had a fun and inspiring time providing supplementary views to those of the other panellists.  Martyn in particular was a delight to hear as he related his experiences with the police after Singapore Rebel (his film documentary featuring Chee Soon Juan, for those who are unaware) was banned and the tapes confiscated.

Thanks to Dr. Wong, who took this picture and sent it to me. I'm cutting the lovely little surprise birthday cake the Singapore Theatre Festival people had gotten for me.  I was utterly floored by their thoughtfulness and warmth. :)

And...life wouldn't be complete without the cast and crew of Rea! Talk of course ;) you might recognize Izzy (Sarong Party Girl), Diana Ser and myself in the back row.  Regardless of the eventual product that was Rea! Talk, the filming and the talkshow itself was fun.  So thanks for the opportunity.


Posted at 06:04 pm by gaylegoh
Speak  




Sunday, August 20, 2006
National Day Rally Speech

Well, PM Lee is currently on the last point of his 5-point speech (Economy, Region, Population, Digital Age, Heartware) which focussed on Singapore having to adapt in a "rapidly-changing world".  The rally speech has been largely unsurprising, with most of my predictions in the previous entry making an appearance (I'll re-post them below, and put the predictions which appeared in emphases), but there are several things which caught my attention.

1) There was no mention of new policies, which is a change from last year's National Day Rally Speech where policies were announced to help those from lower income groups with issues like healthcare and housing.  PM Lee announced that there would be no "quick-fix" solutions.

2) There was indeed a mention of the IMF and World Bank meetings, but no mention was made over the controversy of whether or not protests would be allowed.  I had imagined, I confess, that he would talk a little bit of sovereignty and retaining independence/principles/traditions of stability even in the midst of this "rapidly-changing world".

3) PM Lee stated that the government would have to adapt to the Digital Age.  This segment of the speech naturally held the most interest for me.  He said: "PAP should be in MySpace" (I want to see that happen, I tell you).  He also mentioned that the ministries are considering new media like podcasts and vodcasts, and "will experiment".

This may mark an important milestone in the approach the PAP takes to new media.  It appears that they are going to take to the Internet and appropriate it as a useful tool.  Good! PAP podcasts and Workers' Party podcasts 'facing off' on the Internet is infinitely more constructive to a democratic environment than no podcasts from anyone. 

No doubt though, this will spawn some paranoia that the PAP is now starting to 'take over' the Internet and to control it (especially since PM Lee did say that the Digital Age will bring about new problems which need to be "managed" -- a word which has become particularly infamous since Denise Phua first used it in the context of the Internet).  I say: take a more open-minded approach and look at these developments as having been positive.  A 'light touch' remained a light touch after all, despite many suggestions to the contrary.

PM also mentioned that the government will "lose respect and moral authority" if they do not respond to criticism -- which I agree with.  He took the mr brown issue head on as well, which is better than having swept it under the carpet, one supposes.  His response came across as rather heavy-handed, in line with his stance that politics is about serious national issues, and that mr brown's "mocking and dismissive" tone was unacceptable in this light.

Even as I write this, the mainstream media is broadcasting its report on News 5 Tonight.  It doesn't look like they are interested, however, in the underlying implications of the "Digital Age" segment of his speech, i.e. the PAP's apparent move to harness new technology for its own part in engaging Singaporeans with new media, and to change/update certain laws* -- something I feel is rather significant, because the PAP now seems to be taking themselves to the digital battleground, rather than relying on old methods of issuing official statements and replies.

I made comprehensive notes on the speech, but as I have no doubt that it will be given extensive coverage in tomorrow's papers, I hardly see the need to post them here :)

* Got me all excited; I'd thought he was referring to updating laws.  Apparently he was referring to old changes, and with regards to the Political Films Act, obviously not enough has changed.

Off the top of my head, here are some predictions: overseas Singaporeans, foreign talent, oil prices affecting all of us and hence the need to accept rising costs of living, the realization that the need to stay competitive will affect people from the lower income groups more, but that opportunities will be given, re-training, maybe a welfare scheme or two, same goes for older workers who find that their CPF is not enough, or those who struggle with healthcare costs.  Also, the need to modernize our city to deal with global visitors e.g. the IMF and World Bank, or beyond that, tourists; the Integrated Resorts (which will provide much employment), perhaps something about speaking good English, the need to remain a stable society so as to attract investors, hence the need for law and order and a tight watch over racial sensibilities (esp. given the threat of terrorism and also the Israel-Lebanon crisis), however, the need to balance that with liberal and progressive thinking, people who know their minds and speak it, yet being mindful of their responsibilities (maybe blogs and journalists will get some sort of mention at this point).  Also perhaps to balance globalization with the recognition that we are still very much our own sovereign nation and should only absorb the good stuff, not the bad, and to guard ourselves well from the shocks of globalization, and furthermore, to always see Singapore as our home in this big wide world no matter how globalized it is, and hence stay together while we move ahead, etcetera, etcetera.

-- The words in bold print are the predictions that did turn up in his speech.

Posted at 10:20 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (17)  

Miscellaneous Thoughts

"I will stand again in Tanjong Pagar," said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at a National Day Dinner, as reported in the Straits Times yesterday (Sat, August 19/06).  If MM Lee runs in Tanjong Pagar, he will win.  And he will win more convincingly than his son did in Ang Mo Kio GRC.  I wonder if that will cast his shadow even longer over PM Lee's regime.

"The trouble now is that Singaporeans believe we'll always have a PAP government," MM Lee also said.  "One day they will wake up and they'll find the opposition is the government, a miscalculation." By then, it would be "too late to regret".  Sigh.  I was going to tackle this step by step, but I'll leave it till later.  One interesting thing I did note was that the justification for upgrading has changed a little bit from the original, trite, "a party has the right to favour its own supporters" (commented on here).  It is interesting to see how new arguments are woven everyday to justify old wrongs.  It is also interesting to read how MM Lee said that "I hope in a quiet way, this message will be understood".  Yes, residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir, make sure you suffer quietly.  Don't disturb the peace and stability of the rest of us obedient PAP-fearing citizens.

PM Lee to deliver National Rally Speech tonight.  I can't pay very close attention to it (more prelim papers tomorrow!) but one possible theme could be the consequences of globalization.  Off the top of my head, here are some predictions: overseas Singaporeans, foreign talent, oil prices affecting all of us and hence the need to accept rising costs of living, the realization that the need to stay competitive will affect people from the lower income groups more, but that opportunities will be given, re-training, maybe a welfare scheme or two, same goes for older workers who find that their CPF is not enough, or those who struggle with healthcare costs.  Also, the need to modernize our city to deal with global visitors e.g. the IMF and World Bank, or beyond that, tourists; the Integrated Resorts (which will provide much employment), perhaps something about speaking good English, the need to remain a stable society so as to attract investors, hence the need for law and order and a tight watch over racial sensibilities (esp. given the threat of terrorism and also the Israel-Lebanon crisis), however, the need to balance that with liberal and progressive thinking, people who know their minds and speak it, yet being mindful of their responsibilities (maybe blogs and journalists will get some sort of mention at this point).  Also perhaps to balance globalization with the recognition that we are still very much our own sovereign nation and should only absorb the good stuff, not the bad, and to guard ourselves well from the shocks of globalization, and furthermore, to always see Singapore as our home in this big wide world no matter how globalized it is, and hence stay together while we move ahead, etcetera, etcetera.

Posted at 06:30 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (6)  




Friday, August 18, 2006
Democracy is Dangerous!

I have decided that if the PAP ever needs a strong argument as to why democracy is dangerous and important decisions should never be left to Singaporeans, their ultimate trump of a case would be this:


When I saw Mathilda D'Silva voted off Singapore Idol less than 3 hours ago, I felt the illusions of my youthful idealism fade away.  Singaporeans have dismissed the best female vocalist in the competition and the only individual to date that I have seen on this season's episodes to make any headway into giving his/her performance character, subtlety and narrative (admittedly I haven't had the time to watch many of the episodes, but I've seen and heard enough to be confident in my opinion).  Mathilda is far from perfect, but to think that she was voted out in favour of Paul Twohill (who obviously has charisma but zero chance of being taken seriously as a recording artist with his airy vocals that meander off-tune the moment he starts his intense posturing) or Joakim Gomez (energizer bunny that never says die -- even though you may sometimes guiltily want it to) is quite chilling.  Let alone the fact that Jonathan Leong and Hady Mirza, the only two remaining male vocalists who can hold a tune, were in the bottom 3.  No, I thought to myself, democracy schmemocracy.  People don't make good choices!

Of course, I calmed myself somewhat by thinking about all the various factors in consideration that made Singapore Idol non-analagous to a general election.  For one thing, the electorate is not restricted to one vote per person, allowing for bloc voting, whereby thousands of prepubescents pool their allowances together to vote for their sugars (one friend wryly pointed out that they vote with their uteruses, which I take to be the metaphorical equivalent of voting with one's feet).  This allows one zealous camp to vote again and again and again and again and again for one person, which may not be an indication of long-term marketability or stardom, much less vocal talent.  Secondly, there is the consideration of the fee one has to pay for calling in or SMS-ing, which means that somewhere out there exists a group of people who are sitting back, shaking their heads and saying they know better, but cannot afford to spam hotlines using their limited allowances; I include yours truly.  At the same time, this 'voting fee' could perhaps be likened to the poll tax previously implemented by the United States, which taxed those who wanted to vote, effectively disenfranchising poorer minorities, or more recently to a similar tax policy enacted by Margaret Thatcher, which contributed largely to her eventual resignation after rioting broke out in protest.  Thirdly, Singapore Idol is indeed an event meant for lighthearted entertainment and is likely not taken very seriously, never mind that it might certainly have generated more widespread interest, knowledge and dedication than any General Election has ever achieved.

Nevertheless, there are significant similarities between the Singapore Idol process and the democratic one to warrant some comment.  For instance, a close comparison could be a democracy with non-compulsory voting and poll tax; you can choose to vote or not to vote, and you also have to pay a fee to participate.  Either way, both processes are meant to boil the results of the election/competition to the basic essence of choice, and how it is representative of the people's wants and desires.  If Paul Twohill were to win Singapore Idol, it would be a triumph of choice -- the choice of those who were interested and dedicated enough to vote him as their representative, regardless of whether or not he can sing.  Twohill would be a legitimate winner in every right, assuming the voting infrastructure had been in order.  There would be nothing I could do about it except express my disgruntlement.

The question which begs to be asked therefore, is this: should Ken, Jacintha, Florence and Dick choose a Singapore Idol today? Or perhaps, in the interests of achieving the best results for Singapore, allow me to suggest certain adjustments to the competition process.

  1. Those who do not vote for Hady should be disallowed from upgrading their television access to StarHub cable facilities.  This is to prevent complacency on the part of voters.  After all, without that the system cannot work.  This is because if everything is the same, then Joakim and Paul can say that it doesn't matter, they (Jonathan and Hady) will be voted in anyway if they are really good.
  2. All contestants should be barred from making jokes, talking about their personal lives, and dressing differently or in a manner meant to be provocative.  They should only be allowed to sing.  A singer's future, after all, is serious business.  Singapore Idol elections are certainly not laughing matters.  These cheap tactics should not be allowed to mislead and confuse people in a way that will undermine our national strategy to find a Great Singer.
  3. All advertisement campaigns should feature contestants dressed in the same costumes and be featured in the same lighting, to ensure that the media platform is doing its job accurately, objectively and responsibly.  Furthermore, it will be even better if all advertising campaigns are controlled by high-ranking members of Hady's fan club! This will help to ensure that Hady can be portrayed as having the most fans, being the most handsome and best dressed, etcetera.
  4. I also propose a GRC system (Group Representation Chorus) which will, from the start, group contestants together, e.g., Hady, Jonathan, Rahimah, Mathilda, Nurul and Jasmine should be in one GRC, and say, Jay, Norman, Emilee, Gayle Nerva, Paul and Joakim should be in another one.  This will ensure that capable candidates will have some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, or else many able and successful young Singaporeans will not risk their careers to join Singapore Idol (which is time-consuming and tough, man...but pays a lot lah).
  5. This GRC system will also have the added benefit of ensuring minority representation.  The fact that Singapore, where 70% of the population is Chinese, voted in Taufik Batisah as their Singapore Idol? It's just a fluke.  Normally, you see, Singaporeans are myopic and racist.  They see race before talent.  Don't look at me like that! I'm sure MM Lee (the most senior judge on the panel -- Musical Mentor Dick Lee of course) would agree.
You see, there are so many things we could do to improve the Singapore Idol system.  We should all write letters to MediaCorp with our brilliant suggestions.  They have worked so far in Singapore -- shouldn't we take a leaf from the good book and use it here, as well?

Because then, you see, I would have made Olinda Cho Singapore Idol 2005 -- not Taufik Batisah.  I feel Olinda is a better candidate.  I would have made Hady and Mathilda joint winners by now.  I feel they deserve it more.  I would dispense with this whole farce of letting Singaporeans have what they want because I know best.

Then again, a niggling voice in the back of my head says: but Singaporeans wanted Taufik.  And come to think of it, that's not so bad.  Taufik can sing.  He's quite good looking.  He seems like a nice, down to earth young man.  He even won the popular vote despite being from a minority group -- now that's testimony to his talent, and no one can say he didn't earn it.  Actually...maybe Olinda is a better singer, but she's just not representative enough of who Singapore wants to be their Idol.  Sure, I might think she's better, but maybe it's all about greatest good for greatest number, not just my limited perspective and know-it-all attitude.  And at the end of the day, Singaporeans made their choice, right? And it is Singapore Idol.  Perhaps they will decide better which balance to strike between vocal talent and personality, smooth moves and charisma.  Maybe I should just...trust a little.

So that's what I'm going to do for this Singapore Idol season.  Trust Singaporeans.  And if Paul Twohill or Joakim Gomez win, then maybe I will consider renouncing democracy ;) but I'll hedge my bets that they won't.  And even if they do, hey -- I'll swallow my pride and say: you get the Idol you deserve.  More power to you.

Posted at 08:29 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (31)  




Monday, August 14, 2006
Rea! Talk

I just watched the telecast of Rea! Talk's final episode.  For the record, that was the Channelnewsasia talkshow that was broadcast on Monday, 14 August, 830pm.  It featured a couple who installed surveillance technology at home, a lawyer, a private investigator, Denise Keller, Izzy (the blogger behind sarong party girl) and myself.  I was contacted to participate in the show last month, following the publication of my article on the new CISCO technology.

On the show, none of my comments about the lack of checks and balances on the government's access to data that should be private or public surveillance technology were allowed through.  For instance, I said something along the lines of: "I was in London recently and the place is proliferated with cameras.  But I feel safe there because I recognize the trade-off between privacy and security.  I wouldn't feel safe, though, if these cameras were implemented in Singapore, because [CUT AND SPLICE] if citizens don't know about it, they can't debate about it.  If they can't debate about it, nothing will be changed."

What delicious irony.  The context of my saying that nothing will be changed if citizens don't "know about it" was this: I was comparing the feeling of safety I had in the UK knowing that there were legal provisions to guard against the abuse of the surveillance technology there, to the lack of such security in Singapore.  I talked about the USA PATRIOT Act and how, though it upholds the legality of wiretapping, etc., there was also a whole slew of provisions guarding against abuses; provisions which are upheld by an independent judiciary.  Then I said, I don't see that in Singapore.  Nothing's to stop the government from doing what they want with the data.  I said such laws are important because they stop the government from gaining access to sensitive information such as medical records.

None of that was shown.

Look.  I understand about time constraints.  It's a 30 minute programme; I'm not by any means the most important person on the show.  But you could have cut something else, starting with the 1001 other inane things I said that you did show.

What you did instead, was to take away the only different and unique angle I brought to that episode.  I was the only person to talk about the impact of new technology on the relationship between citizens and governments.  Take that away, and honestly, I might as well not have been a guest at all.

On that night I said to myself: never mind if they chop everything away, at least I got to get the message down to those people who were at the live recording at Toa Payoh Hub; passers-by who had something else to think about because they happened to, well, pass by.

But after seeing the product, I'm more indignant than I thought I would be.

I hate being on television.  I'm uncomfortable, out of my element, I ramble, I'm self-conscious, and I look five times worse than I do in real life or even in pictures (except the sort they publish in Straits Times).  The two times I did appear on television before this talkshow were more than sufficient to teach me that.  But I agreed to appear on Rea! Talk because I thought that any platform is a good one on which to champion the issues I'm passionate about.

If you take away those issues, then do me a favour, and never ask me to be on a show like that again.  For the record: this is what I'm about.  Things I believe in.  Please have full recognition of the fact that I will talk about these things.  Things you might not want to put on national television.  If you are not ready to let the public hear these things, then I'll say it again: never ask me to be on a show like that again.

All you will find me doing is what I did on that episode of Rea! Talk: sit around, make your TV set look ugly, and offer comments that add no value to the discussion.

Do me one more favour, too.  Don't drop allusions to "Big Brother" on your show if you are unwilling to go all the way in examining the implications of the literary cross-reference.

By the way, this is dedicated to whoever was responsible for the cutting.  I like to think it wasn't the production crew and personnel who were, in fact, perfectly helpful and supportive -- the wonderful lady producer in particular, thank you very much.  But to the person who decided that the politically racy stuff should go, well, gee, you sure did a good job :)

There's one outstanding TV project I agreed to help with (though I'm even more wary now).  I've committed to that, so I won't back out.  But if you're from the media and you visit this site, no more television, please.  At least I could work with journalists over the articles and come to something acceptable.  Here I have no control.  I don't do this stuff to get on TV or be famous.  I'd rather not be, thank you very much.

What I would rather be is my own person.  Not the person you cut me up to become.

Addendum: For the benefit of 'the other side of the story', the producer of Rea! Talk e-mailed me to assure me that things had only been cut due to time constraints, not because they were too politically sensitive.  I'm willing to accept the explanation, but I think it extremely unfortunate that the comments which were chosen to be aired made no mention whatsoever of the governmental spin to my views.  I will accept in this instance that there was no conspiracy theory, but do understand if I take things with a pinch of salt as it seems an awfully convenient choice of material to snip away, leaving the "if citizens don't know about it..." comment woefully lacking in context.  Also, I apologize if my rambling made it more difficult to select concise soundbites :)

Posted at 10:01 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (33)  




Friday, August 11, 2006
Singapore's 41st: Midlife Crisis?

I had originally taken this down because I felt the metaphor to be a bit extravagant.  Nevertheless, due to the combination of people asking me constantly where this article had vanished to, as well as the fact that I still uphold many of the observations in this article to be valid, I've decided that it will wreak no harm to re-post the copy I'd saved, just in case of a crash.


The Midlife Crisis

1.  Midlife is the old age of youth and the youth of old age. -- Proverb.

2.  "Midlife transition" is a natural stage that happens to many of us at some point (usually at about age 40, give or take 20 years).

Midlife transition can include:

  • Discontentment or boredom with life or with the lifestyle (including people and things) that have provided fulfilment for a long time.
  • Feeling restless and wanting to do something completely different.
  • Questioning decisions made years earlier and the meaning of life.
  • Confusion about who you are or where your life is going.

-- Source.

3.  A mid-life crisis is an emotional state of doubt and anxiety in which a person becomes uncomfortable with the realization that life is halfway over. It commonly involves reflection on what the individual has done with his or her life up to that point, often with feelings that not enough was accomplished. The individuals experiencing such may feel boredom with their lives, jobs, or their partners, and may feel a strong desire to make changes in these areas. The condition is also called the beginning of individuation, a process of self-actualization...

-- Source.


9th August 2006

...will mark Singapore's birthday, and celebrate its conception on 9th August 1965 as an independent state, separate from Malaysia.  The red-and-white flags paint a resplendent 41 all over the sprawling heartlands, the guns are being polished, the soldiers examine their tan-lines from hours spent in the sun with army caps and short-sleeved uniforms.  It is a landmark occasion, yes -- just like all the ones before it, and all the ones that will come after.  And even as we prepare to turn up in droves, wave our free plastic flags and collect our goodie bags from the National Day Parade, these preparations are underlined with confusion, disenfranchisement, and a need to reach beneath and beyond the orchestrated jubilation to reach the heart of what it means to be Singapore -- at 41 years old.

The old age of youth and the youth of old age.  Singapore can no longer play the child prodigy in international affairs.  For decades it has been the success story and the darling of economists eager to prove the possibilities for young, developing nations in their nascence.  Singapore has barged its way into economic success, and now has to deal with the problems and difficulties faced by other mature and developed nations; inflation, the need for quick and competent structural adjustments, and remaining relevant to the rapidly-shifting demands of the global economy.  Billions of dollars are being pumped into our biomedical and IT sectors.  We are developing new resorts, casinos, and revamping our shopping choices. We are freewheeling into a new dimension.  Lee Hsien Loong's 2005 National Day Rally speech revolved around the theme of 'Remaking Singapore'.  Our leadership has rightly acknowledged - in some aspects, at least - that we are entering an era with new demands and higher expectations.  Nothing can be taken for granted any longer.  We have reached the old age of youth, and the youth of our old age.

Discontentment and/or boredom with lifestyles that have provided fulfillment for a long time.  Reinvention, recreation, retraining: these are words which leap easily to the fingertips of our administration.  But even as we search desperately for ways to stay young, there are signs of our ageing.  Singaporeans are no longer content with toys.  Post-65ers are not satisfied with budget surpluses.  They are looking deeper, increasingly frustrated and unsatisfied with the explanations of what it means to be Singaporean.  "Who are you, my country?" is not by any means a new or radical question.  For countless years, it has been asked, and for years to come, it will continue to be heard.  No one will ever find The Answer.  In the meantime, however, what is important to note is that more and more Singaporeans are asking themselves deep-seated questions of identity.  It is a concept that matters increasingly, to an increasing number of people -- not a small number of academics from the intelligentsia, but Singaporeans who live and work as professionals, who are part of tomorrow's masses.  Abstract, it may still be.  Esoteric, it is not.

Mr brown posted a podcast entitled 'I am Singaporean', a spin-off from a Canadian advertising campaign that re-awakened Canadian nationalism.  In his podcast, he concretizes what it means to be Singaporean on a personal level, from his perspective as a middle-aged Singaporean from the heartlands.  He talks about his HDB flat, his car, his family.  Many bloggers have responded with declarations of their own which -- at times, painfully -- grapple with their Singaporean identity.

"I am a Singaporean.

I grew up in a shophouse first, then as a heartlander in a HDB flat.
But I also remember my kampung days back at the sua teng.

My 'native' language is English,
Not some Mother Tongue called Mandarin
Because my parents conversed almost entirely in English with me since young.

I speak Singlish, along with street Hokkien and rusty Cantonese with pride
Because it is uniquely Singapore
And because some older folks can only understand their dialects.

I know how it feels to be one united people
Not just at the National Stadium during National Day Parades,
But also at the opposition rallies during the General Elections."

-- gecko.

The above blogger attempts to capture the essence of his Singaporean identity through exploring his memories of childhood, political exposure, the notions of language and culture, and various other growing pains and adult burdens as experienced through the lens of a Singaporean.  Even as he builds up that identity, however, other bloggers on a similar endeavour find themselves at an impasse; a bewildering lack of, or even an outright refusal to acknowledge, that same identity -- case in point, with these excerpts from a piece that speaks with piercing honesty about disenfranchisement:

"I am Singaporean because I was born here, and I hold a red passport with two golden lions(tigers? who knows?) thrusting their chest out and sneering to rude immigration officers: let her pass, she's from a first-world country, you know, an air-conditioned nation. I am Singaporean because I have a pink identification card that conscientiously reminds me and everyone else who registers me at a checkpoint, an exam, a driving test, a club, my own wedding, that my race is Malay and I better not forget it. But of course, I am taught not to discriminate others based on what it states on their I.C.

...I am Singaporean but the cab driver cannot believe it when I say I'm Malay and I am attending university. Waaah, Malay people so smart nowaday hor. You full Malay or half Malay only?

I am Singaporean but I refuse to sing the national anthem because progress, ambition and prosperity are not my main priorities so I will not sing about them.

I am Singaporean because now, at 21, I am lost. I have spent my childhood in school, in art class, at violin lessons, being told to study, and studying hard, harder, hardest to find that I did not need to know anything I have learnt, that I know nothing worth knowing. Now, at 21, I am thirstier than ever because there are so many spaces to fill in my mind where the layers of temporary wisdom have left, leaving a pitiful vacuum full of unanswered questions.

...I am Singaporean because I don't know who I am just yet.

 I am not Singaporean if Singapore= the Government, order= hegemonic rule, if policy-making= commanding.

I am not Singaporean if debating about public policy means I will be shamed, ridiculed and punished.

They say I should love my country, hang my flag out proudly for national day, say my pledge with some measure of pride. Yet, they will never let me fly a fighter plane to defend Singapore. I am not Singaporean, but I will be "Malay" to them if we ever go to war with our neighbours.

I am not Singaporean, not at all, until they learn to respect me."

-- ballsy.

The beginning of individuation, the process of self-actualization... There are two Singapores which may arise from the rubble of such a crisis.  The first is a scattershot hodge-podge coincidence of mutual economic interests, where people live here and call themselves Singaporean for as long as it is safe and profitable to do so.  This may be perfectly acceptable to many people.  We may be witnessing, after all, the death of the relevance of patriotism in an increasingly globalized world, where the new paradigms of our 21st-century global village revolve around opportunity and self-realization.  The bounds of community and tradition, while growing stronger, such as in much of the Muslim world, or perhaps in the case of European nationalism, also seem to be losing significance in the consumerist philosophy that proliferates Singaporean society -- I have so many choices, now let's pick what's best for me.  It may well be for many people that it is unnecessary, futile and only engenders distress to invest time and effort in a place that after all, is only a construct, and an imagined community based on simple land.

If, however, we want to create a country where people have a stake; where a belief in a common destiny makes them cast their lots in with this community of family, friends and even complete strangers -- if we are concerned with the survival of Singapore as a distinctly identifiable nation, and not simply a glorified marketplace or a plot of land with added value, then this mid-life crisis may well spell out the chance to build that nation.  Cultures, communities and civilizations are jostling for space in this interconnected international arena.  If, as Singaporeans, we intend to carve out a cultural space for our little island, then we need to draw on something more real and more convincing than "Count on me, Singapore / Count on me to give my best and more".  The government may do its valiant best to engineer nationalism, but perhaps we need only look -- just for starters -- at ballsy's indirect articulation of the failure of those efforts, to discover some of the sentiments which are holding us back from giving ourselves to this country.


Posted at 04:49 pm by gaylegoh
Spoken (6)  




Next Page
gayle goh

<< September 2006 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

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.

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed