Die neue Welle

In the aftermath of someone burning someone else in Singapore, a certain Rear-Admiral has showed his dismay at the “lack of self-regulation” in the blogosphere.  How tragic.  His worldview of things in Singapore, namely that everything functions like clockwork and that dissension is put down by a lightning bolt must be shattered.  Indeed, he felt that the blogosphere did too little to rebut some of the flaming which took place.

So what is self-regulation?  While i do not condone the flaming attack, i too did not do “my part” in refuting the barrage of comments supporting Ong Kah Chua.  And why did i not do it?  Because there is no point in refuting people who are expressing their feelings.  What’s more, is not the glowing adoration of the victim in the State’s Times enough?  It is true that Seng Han Thong’s plight is a pitiable one.  But if you will read what some of the residents of his constituency said, you will also realise that there is not much sympathy for him.  Why are all the top-level personnel visiting him and hardly anyone from his own constituency?  Faced with such evidence, with what would you expect someone who wishes to refute them to actually refute them?

What the RADM wants to have is objectivity in the Internet, self-regulation, accountability and balance.

On Objectivity.  This criterion is one of the most problematic.  It’s no secret that the PAP controls the press indirectly and has consolidated its power by systematically keeping the Opposition weak.  Naturally, they, being the powers that be, have the right to declare what they subjectively see as a party to be what objectively is the case.  But is it?  Objectivity, in our Rear-Admiral’s definition, means objectivity perhaps the way the State’s Times publishes its news.  Well-researched.  Accountable.  But again, with the caveat: it is indirectly politically-controlled.

Indeed, doesn’t objectivity come from having both pro and contra?  Objectivity means literally from the ‘viewpoint of the object as it is’ – just because you have power doesn’t mean that your view is objective.  Objectivity comes from pluralism.  (Or at least, it’s a way of minimising subjectivity.)  It has always been easy to see the Internet as a dangerous place, because people there are oh-so-hostile.  But now that there are well-written, logical pieces (i refer you here and here) speaking against or asking for reflection on the side of the powers that be, is not a form of objectivity being produced?  Objectivity in the PAP sense is not pure objectivity.

On self-regulation.  In what sense of the word do we want self-regulation?  Are we supposed to rebut every comment extolling Ong Kah Chua because of the lack of objectivity and the fact that what he did was deplorable?  As a blogger, we can argue, but we cannot convince one to change his beliefs.  This isn’t the State’s Times, where letters are rejected.  Indeed, when it comes to accountability, the online news sites are a lot more accountable than the MSM.  People ask why their comments were removed.  Can you ask the State’s Times why your letter wasn’t featured?

Everyone has a right to saying what he wants on the net.  Self-regulation à la the Rear-Admiral would make the Net like the State’s Times.  If our RADM wants self-regulation, he could start with Stomp, where anything and everything is put up.  If he looked at Stomp, actually, he probably would marvel at how different the Net is compared to what the MSM tried to make the Net into – a lawless place where anything and everything can be said.  It is true that you can’t say anything you want on the Net.  But you can surely say a damn lot of stuff.  But do we sensationalise couples we interpret to be making out on buses, like Stomp does, and then getting them into a lot of trouble?  The Net has self-regulation, just not the way our RADM would prefer it, which is MSM-esque.

Part II follows!

So after passing Latin, i began reading up on everything which has happened in the ‘missing time’.  And it has come to pass that JBJ has moved on to a better place.  Yet another, one of the most flamboyant members of the old guard has passed on, and who is left in place?  Already this question should give you pause for thought.  And there has been a huge outpouring of condolence letters, mostly sincere, but also egoistical and insincere (i mean, the man is dead. Give him a break.)

JBJ was a person who was a good orator, and one who could stir up the crowds.  Unfortunately, that he was a good orator made him suitable for political machinations.  I don’t have to go through his trials and tribulations once again (i refer you to Farquhar on TOC for more details) but he was a person who took it upon himself to see that his ideal Singapore would be one governed by its citizens, and who fought to bring politics down from the clouds above which dissenters are always challenged to enter and down to a playing field which could be observed by the everyday man.  For this, he paid the price, time and time again.

These are things we can read up everywhere.  But what troubles me is that JBJ is rapidly becoming an icon.  An icon of freedom, an icon of a Singapore which it can never/not yet aspire to be.  But the thing is, icons tend to be forgotten.  Icons are going to be remembered in a romantic form, where things were always simpler, and there were such things as ideals to be attained.  Ideals which can never be attained today, but it was definitely nice to remember that once upon a time someone thought they could be attained.  So you think back and get back to your everyday life, which the Government has so-well planned, keeping you busy enough such that you don’t mind remaining stupid.

JBJ is an icon, and that can mean many things: as i commented in the TOC article, JBJ will be demonised in the next generation of school textbooks, or as long as Grand Master Lee remains alive, and his resilience will only make the threat JBJ seemed to pose to modern Singapore with all its amenities (but sadly without its soul) all the more bigger.  And for us, what will JBJ have fought for if nothing remains of his legacy but an icon, an ideal, a picture of days past?  As long as people are still caught up in getting rich/richer, no one is going to go the way JBJ did.  Everyone would rather want the status quo to be maintained, as long as Singapore is stable.  There is more unhappiness now since things aren’t looking so good.  But once things look up again – who is going to pay attention to who raised what again?  Who is going to stand up and say I Disagree?  Perhaps most people would, if they weren’t that busy.

I shall remember JBJ, the orator and politician, using these verses from Cicero’s Oratio in Catilinam, where Cicero denounces Catiline for a conspiracy against the state and people.  A translation is available after the post.  These are questions which should be asked, but never are:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt? Patere tua consilia non sentis, constrictam iam horum omnium scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non vides? (Oratio in Catilinam, I.1)

requiescat in pace.

*Now the translation:

How long, o Catiline, will you abuse our patience?  How long will this madness of yours elude us? To what end does your unbridled boldness toss itself about?  Does not the protection of the Palace at night, nor the guards of the city, nor the fear of the people, nor the meeting of the best [Senators], nor this place which is the safest for the convening of the Senate, nor the looks and expressions of these [gathered here], make the slightest impression on you?  Do you not know that your plans have been exposed, do you not see that your fouled conspiracy has been already kept in check by the wisdom of all who are present?

So there has been a recent discussion about scholarships with bonds (cfr. The Sun Chair Critic and Tribolum.com) and the question is: why do more and more people take up bond-free scholarships?  Personally, i wish sometimes that my scholarship was bond-free, because i am happier in Germany than i am in Singapore.  But that’s besides the point.  Lucian Teo says that scholarships and bonds are, essentially, different, and that there is nothing wrong with taking up a bond-free scholarship if you can give back to society.  I agree, although society should be seen as Mankind as a whole, and not a partisan kind of Mankind, which is how a bond is seen as.

My German friends are already asking if i will ever come back to Germany and they find it strange that i have a bond to serve (albeit a not very long one.)  But let’s put it this way.  A bond is a transaction.  You give me some, so you get some from me.  It is, at its most simplistic level, a barter, and nothing more.  I signed on the dotted line, and read the fine print, and i have nothing against giving back what the Gahmen thinks i owe them.  It’s just too bad that the Gahmen likes to remain especially limited here, and thus slaps us with a bond saying ‘you have to serve US, and damned be to the rest of Mankind.’  Which i can understand, because ultimately, it’s always good if we make it and you don’t.  The bond also benefits me – i get teaching experience which may be of use to me if/when i should become a professor of anything (hopefully Philosophy though.)

The Sun Chair Critic, however, saw a more interesting development – the comments of his article said that he should just drop his idealism and accept the hard facts.  That i am not a SAFOS/PSC scholar means that i am a 2nd-grade scholar, and only 2nd-grade people are offered 2nd-grade scholarships.  The hard truth which the Sun Chair Critic refuses to accept is this: Governments objectify people, because governments are elected by the people to represent them, to provide an ‘objective’ perspective on the millions of subjective views.  Thus, we have 1st-grade scholarships like PSC, SAFOS, etc., and 2nd-grade scholarships, like those which are offered by the stat boards.  You can see the difference in that PSC also sends people overseas for teaching scholarships.

How are people objectified?  Grades, CCA, appointments in NS.  The interview is a formality and more often than not you already know beforehand if you have it or not.  They don’t have the time or the interest in knowing what you’re really good at.  However, i feel that the comments made that 2nd-grade scholarships are offered to 2nd-grade people are just pure MALARKEY.  I mean, that that is the Singaporean SYSTEM’s way of judging a person’s worth doesn’t mean that it is objectively universally true.  The only objective fact in judging a person’s worth is the fact that people are human, nothing else.  People are human – they live, get educated, do their dues and die.  The ‘objective’ judging criterion measures how much use you are to the system within a particular period of time, and it doesn’t matter if YOU gain something from it.

It hurts to be seen as a 2nd-class scholar/person, but what can you do about it?  Be an Ancient Roman homo novus?  Not very likely.  You’re cut off from that anyway, since you probably didn’t receive a so-called first-class scholarship, and furthermore, you’re not the son of some minister.  The only ideal you can hold onto is the very limitation of your humanity.  You, a 1st-grade scholar, LKY, Bush – they are ALL HUMAN.  And they can only do so much.  That they are judged to be worth more doesn’t mean that they necessarily are.  It’s a well-known belief in Singapore that many 1st-grade scholars produce textbook policies which fail spectacularly in praxis or that they aren’t the people we think we can invest our trust in.  1st-grade scholar does not mean 1st-grade person.  And that is what life is about.

For, what happiness does it bring when you know that you have riches and power, but everyone is just kissing your ass because you happen to have these?  Does it mean that you are wise?  Does it mean that people will like you?  Granted that you may do the right thing because you can see things ‘objectively’ due to your separation from the hoi polloi doesn’t mean that you are doing the BEST thing.  And at the very end, you don’t have to face anyone but yourself.  So yes, i am a 2nd-grade scholar.  The system can equate that with me being a 2nd-grade person.  But only in utilitarian terms.  I can be a first-grade person in my own eyes, i can try to be a first-grade person according to what i define as first-grade, and what society defines as first-grade.

Singapore is bigger than the PAP, and it would do well for you to remember that.

On a study hiatus. Latin exam on the 24th September…updates will be few and far between, but if something sensational enough shows up, you can bet it’ll be on here.

opto vobis vitam beatissimam – bibamus!

Time for another NDP post, since NDP is coming up on Saturday…

Aaron is right when he notes that everyone is in red except for the politicians in white. Of course, it could be a freebie which the masses wear out of pure gratitude, but symbolically, i think it is supposed to mean that the people are the blood of the country, and the politicians are white, i.e. incorruptible. I think that’s what it’s supposed to mean, or maybe it’s in the textbooks.

But in doing so, the politicians have separated themselves from the people. It’s also a symbolic separation, one which one can probably see today too in the form of policies which have questionable results, although the intention may be good. In other words, the difference between theory and praxis. Also shows in the way some politicians appear to be arrogant and be better-than-thou.

So Singapore Spirit is supposed to be celebrated in a stadium where the two groups are fully separated from each other? Probably Singapore Spirits should be celebrated instead. Maybe the politicians wanted to wear red, but, like Pontius Pilate, who ‘washed his hands’ off Jesus’ case, they’ve washed theirs too…they’ve washed off the everyday person’s persona and life, and moved on to better things.

Something for you all to read…

Not all in West call for liberal ideals out of jealousy

AS A politics and international relations undergraduate attending university in Britain, I have followed the recent furore over perceived ‘Singapore-bashing’ comments in the local press with great interest. I would like to think my views do not stem from just one side of the divide. I grew up in Singapore, and attended local schools. These days, I attend lectures by ‘Western liberals’, and discuss politics with young people of similar leaning. This, thus far, has been my exposure to the ideals of human rights and free speech, among other principles which have received fairly short shrift by sections of the Singapore public and academia.

At my university, there is a campaign or protest on the steps of the Student Union at any one time – against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, against xenophobia in Britain, against the atrocities in Darfur… These campaigns are not public nuisances, and they are never regarded as such. To my mind, they are the product of passion and intellectual discussion, and their utility lies in the debate they spark, on issues which are often controversial.

Note that these campaigns – often centred on, and calling for human rights, or at least the broader concept of human security – are not propagated by the government. More often than not, these students target government policies, calling for change, and encouraging civil society, in turn, to urge action in Parliament. This is the value of constructive dissent, in itself possible because of freedom of speech – within limits – and the right to protest.

My point is this: Not all in the West call for liberal ideals because they are ‘jealous’. Singaporeans writing in and to the local press have asserted that the West must understand that Singapore’s principles are fundamentally different, that here the focus is on pragmatism, on meeting material needs, and on stability. I feel it is also important to recognise that the Western intellectual tradition is perhaps more philosophically oriented, and certainly more vocal.

I find most disturbing the accusations that all criticism aimed at the Government must be from ignorant, jealous outsiders. Perhaps this stems from the perception that all radical dissenters in the local political landscape are lunatics. To begin, I am currently working with local women’s non-governmental organisation Aware, and it offers constructive criticism of government policies relating to sex and gender in its 2007 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) Shadow Report. Former and current Aware presidents have risen to the fore to argue for local and migrant women’s rights, if not for the recognition of universal human rights. Surely they are not ignorant or jealous – but attempting to spark debate, and eventually reform?

The worst possible approach Singapore could take at the moment is to go on the defensive and adopt the same moral high-handedness it believes the West is levelling at it. Of course the West is no vanguard of human civilisation; it is ridiculous to assume academics in the West are oblivious to that fact. None of my professors will hold, I am sure, that the United States or Britain presents a ‘perfect’ democracy. But nor does Singapore. It is time to stop pointing fingers back across the water, and start exchanging ideas on what we can learn from each other.

Dell Marie Butler (Ms)

Indeed, who’s on the higher horse? Personally, I believe that both sides are guilty of moral high-horsing. Being based currently in Germany, I can see that Singapore is a dream when it comes to efficiency, and so on. Why are there student movements in Europe? It is a tradition born out of Continental idealism (especially Kant and the Deutscher Idealismus), and the Aufklärung (Enlightenment) which sees reason as the instance of human activity and judgement. It is this view which the West feels that all humans should have, and thus the West attempts to influence the East.

There has been, probably since Classical Athens, no perfect democracy. However, i think the West has, based on these principles, spoken out more for democracy, because Man is a rational being, and in bending to any government (as can be seen in the Orient), Man is chained. And it is his fault. Perhaps the ratio (lat.: reason) of the people should be allowed to shine through more, according to the West. And since there are no more pure democracies (for a pure democracy, again, read up on Athens) people elect their representatives, who are ultimately responsible to those who put them in power.

Perhaps this doesn’t sit well with the Orient, because an ideal state here would be a benevolent despotism. Which the Singaporean government, IMHO, appears to be. Thus, we have reached our ideals. However, despots don’t like to listen to criticism, and thus the furore about the whole hoo-ha. I guess this is especially relevant in Singapore because Singapore is two-faced – we feel somehow responsible for (i mean, sure, we ARE responsible for our Government) to the Government, despite Singapore being a ‘democratic’ country. Keep the Opposition weak, and the press cowed, and the masses lost in their materialistic insanity, and you have absolute power.

I, too have wondered why people who are jacked up about the whole thing assume that the West is ‘jealous.’ I mean please, get off your high horse already. People in the West, although having to deal with higher criminality, high taxes and low efficiency, are happier. We may be efficient and very safe, but are we happy? Both have their strengths, one born out of respect for the ordinary human being, the other out of respect for numbers. Would Westerners, then, be jealous of us? I don’t think so. Perhaps for certain MNCs which like the very liberal market here, perhaps. But the big question is: is the ordinary Westerner jealous?

MM Lee has a big, but fragile ego, but he has earned it with his work. I don’t think Singapore or Singaporeans deserve to have this kind of ego at all. Jealous? Sounds like sour grapes to me! It is interesting how people compare apples with oranges…you can’t compare efficiency against human freedom, because these are two separate standards. Maybe a restriction in freedom is worth it for efficiency. But how far does it go? Politicians in a so-called ‘democracy’ would pay attention to such details. But is this so in Singapore? When you have an octagenarian wave threats in our collective faces? It saddens me that in Singapore, the average human is assumed to know nuts.

Do you love your country?

After being away for awhile, i realise that i actually DO love my country. Not the politicians who run it, not the traffic jams, and certainly not the mentality, but the country – the food, the people, family, Singlish and all. But do i fit into the definition of ‘loving my country?’ I believe that loving my country also includes being responsible for the country, and criticising the people we have elected to represent our country when things are not right or presenting suggestions when we can. As National Day closes, and loosely-packaged propaganda starts passing through the mainstream media, and even more so when this National Day’s theme is ‘Celebrating the Singapore Spirit,’ i felt that it was time to ask the question: do you love your country? What is the Singapore Spirit?

Is the Singapore Spirit one of materialism, working hard in the hope that one day, you will make it rich, and attain the 5Cs, with the accompanying social status, sending your kids overseas for education? I would like to say no, but it’s the Singapore Spirit that the Gahmen believes in. As MM Lee, a staunch apologist for the system he has toiled to build up, said ‘As long as we have a dynamic economy, we can solve problems.‘ But in doing so, people become objects – statistics and numbers. The Government believes that the key to solving problems is a stable economy, and that is an important factor. But in the pursuit of this economical system, every aspect of the country has been geared towards it – the school system, procreation programmes, and the very unpopular theme of importing foreigners at the cost of the people.

Is there more to being human than just being a number? If Singaporeans felt that there was, there wouldn’t be procreation problems, and the Government would have fully stabilised its power. I believe there is more. But in a place where this belief cannot be realised, it becomes hope. The Government also wants us to believe in that. Teacher hopefuls applying to teach are promised a chance at ‘moulding young lives.’ But moulding young lives and maximising their potential – in what aspect? Children are exposed to the cruel reality from the very beginning – do or die, dog-eat-dog. And it’s not because teachers don’t want to do more – appraisals are made every year, and teachers have to do more to earn their bonus. Students have to do well, too.

It makes me wonder how much is actually learnt at school then. But in doing this, schools are a mirror of society – you don’t have to know more than what is necessary for your grades. Grades. Salaries. Numbers. ‘Objective statistics.’ That’s what Singapore measures everything with. Ministers always give particular public bodies ‘grades’ because of something they have managed to achieve, etc. That’s why most of us are relegated to giving our suggestions on the Internet, where more serious political discourse takes place than what you see on the MSM. Perhaps the MSM, being a Government body, emphasises this aspect of concrete grades, statistics etc., like having an abstract replacement birth rate and all, and the forums are made up of complaints of people who have not been treated as they have expected.

But in being fully grounded in the material, the Government’s Singapore has lost one very important aspect – spirit. Spirit is something you can’t measure specifically. And spirit has to be built up. And one wonders why Singapore is so soulless. It is the fascination with the material, with objective numbers, that Singapore is soulless. We don’t have a rich and illustrious history, or a defining moment – even if we did, these defining moments have been lost in the mad rush to develop the country, or even worse, moulded to fit those in power, for history is always written by the winners. Singaporeans are not stupid – we know this as well.

A country is like a human being, and to use an example from Aristotle, any living thing is a combination of material and soul. Since the material is already there, shouldn’t the soul be developed as well, so that the entire living creature can be dynamic and can bring forth its fullest potential? But when the mind (analogy: the politicians) remain too fixed on the body, the soul gets neglected, and this is a reason why so many Singaporeans pack their bags and leave. Because the living thing is not getting any better. They don’t hate the country. But they want to be taken care of, they want to be seen as humans. And although the Government prides itself on making difficult moves, this is one move it cannot afford to neglect. Not in the long run.

If i return and feel that i am just treated as a tool, as a number, i would pack my bags and leave too. There is more to life than being a money-making statistic. Singaporeans see this and want to believe in it. But for most, it remains an unfulfilled dream.  If we want to love but the lover is shunned as one who hates, then you can’t blame the lover for giving up and leaving.  It takes two, and if we are expected to love the country, we should be loved as well, shouldn’t we?  How can, then, one love a statistic, a number?