Its embarrassing

Recently there has been a spate of very 'interesting' topics in the Straits Times including 'Taupoking', Bra Oil Leaks, and Dog Tags for Singaporeans!

I don't know about fellow Singaporeans but I can assure you I cringe when I read such stuff in the ST.

Firstly, I seriously mistook the 'Taupoking' letter (which I first read from another source) as a satirical article. I was shocked when I realised that the writer was not only serious but actually thought that publishing such a letter in the forum was the best solution. The word 'Taupok' in itself is inherently hilarious and he still helpfully supplied a description of the act by using phrases such as 'Taupoking'. I mean, come on man! Try to keep a straight face during a 'serious' conversation with phrases like 'I totally condemn taupoking. Taupokers should be punished severly'. That is how ridiculously the letter reads. The number of satirical references to this ludicrous letter is various blogs is fully deserved! And very funny too. But the original, is still the class act. Too bad it was meant to be serious, else it would have served as good evidence that Singaporean writers have comedic talent.

And then when you thought that was dumb enough, a woman writes to the ST to complain about her faulty bra! I am seriously not sure if the ST medium is the best place for such complaints. Since names are essential for a letter to be published, she essentially is declaring to the world (1)she has no assets whatsoever (2)she is clueless on choosing appropriate channels (3)she is inviting embarssment to herself. Oh, and that she has an itchy right neh..erm...torso.

Classic case of social suicide there. I thought suicide was banned in Singapore. Perhaps they should extend it to social suicide as well. And social homicide for that matter, then the 'Taupokee's' Dad would be guilty of that.

And then there is the genius who suggested that Singaporeans should use dog-tags when overseas so that they can be identified. Well, I am somewhat against this idea since (1)We are not dogs (2)Erm then what are passports and ICs for?? I would hate it if I had to wear a dog tag 'just in case I died' since it is a holiday rather than a war that I am going to. Maybe that is why dog-tags are only used for soldiers in war? Then there is this minor issue of 'civil rights' which of course is nonexistent in Singaporeans minds.

I don't know how long these geniuses take to craft their letters but it certainly looks like they took about 5 seconds to consider through the issues they raised before firing off their letters to the press.

Actually, the whole Singaporean system of complaints through Forum Letters is pretty unique. Most countries have parliamentary debate, question time and active campaigning but of course, Singaporeans rely on their 2 mediums, one being a letter to the forum, the other being a 'complaint to the MP'. Which is actually pretty sad since important issues such as government policy which you may wish to raise (Yeah right, as if anyone bothers/dares) stands beside letters complaining of their leaky bras.

In other words, we have an Aunt Agony system for resolving our issues. I can raise quite a few more issues on why such a system is both wrong and inadequate but I'll leave that to another time.

The Freedom of Blogging

One of the major issues facing blogging today is the fact that blogging about one's personal life usually involves sensitive issues like social relationships, complaints about work conditions, controversial contemporary issues, etc.

Many bloggers argue that since this is their personal blog, it is their space in the world and they are entitled to write about anything they want to in their blog. They champion 'freedom of speech' and certainly blogging potentially magnifies the scope of one's audience by the very nature of the internet.

However, many bloggers start whining and complaining when people start posting comments on their views. Firstly, subjectivitism is a human trait that often blinds one to the bigger picture. As such, most rants are very one-sided, deriving mainly from the blogger's personal experiences and thoughts on the matter. A religious person chancing upon a blogger's personal antagonistic take on religion, will construe the viewpoint in a very negative way and may be inclined to post a comment which criticises the point and tries to offer a rebuttal. This may be positive since a healthy debate may ensue and both parties (and neutral readers) will be able gain extra insight, valuable especially since it is seen from a perspective that one would not have conceived himself.

However, therein the problem lies. Most often, many take criticism personally and any small rebuke may be construed as a personal attack. Certainly, there are posts which launch personal attacks against their adversaries itself, but these are mostly below the belt issues and they deserve to be treated with the manner of respect which they issue their personal attacks.

However, sometimes a viewpoint may trigger indignance in an individual even though it wasn't meant to be a personal attack against a person or group. And when a debate ensues, it may denigrate down to a personal war whereby a person's intelligence, looks and character is basically slandered. An unhealthy flame war ensues.

It should be pretty common sense that when u create a blog, the potential audience is the WORLD and if you are not discerning enough to exercise some tact either on your identity or on your content then you are only inviting trouble to yourself. It is just like when you are walking in a busy shopping mall, you are entitled to wearing what you want but surely you cannot complain if you wear outrageous clothes and not attract stares or comments from passer-bys.

As much as it is a personal template for freedom of expression, there has always been the need to balance this with a person's right to privacy and to defend his good name. Blogging's inherent nature is public and if one wishes to even make seemingly inane remarks about and individual/entity there is a chance that they may chance upon the remarks and get affronted. If you were in an office, you may gossip about your boss being 'bald' although you do not really have anything against him. However, this may be a sensitive issue to him. You would also MAKE SURE he couldn't hear you because if he did, he is bound to be insulted and as the employer he has every right not to condone such behaviour if he has option not to. An office gossip may be overheard by a dozen or so employees. A blog on the internet has the potential to reach far more people than that.

While complete freedom of expression should be exercisable on one's own blogspace, one must also anticipate and deal with the consequences of it. Bad mouthing individuals/entities on the internet is as bad, if not worse, than speaking ill of someone on a street, because ultimately a blog is on public domain, not a private diary. Any argument that purports that the target individual/entity mentioned 'was not supposed to be reading it because the blog was not designed for such audience' is hypocritical simply because if the target individual/entity was not supposed to read it, there are enough checks and balances in place (passwords, private blogs) to ensure that it does not happen. However, this will of course lower the potential readership of one's blog. In other words, such an argument is a case of 'wanting only to enjoy the good points but not willing to accept the potential bad points'. The term "professionalism" may be of consideration to those who feel they have a right to blog about anything at work without fear of reprisals.

Handicapped Parking Lots reserved for VIPs

Via http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2005/01/this_lot_is_res.html

Gist : A school organised an event and reserved the handicapped parking lot for the VIP. A handicapped man (Mr Om) was not allowed to occupy the parking space and was consequently denied the chance to attend the event. He wrote a letter to the ST Forum lambasting the School for its insensitivity. The school apologised publicly through the forum.

Imho what happened was that the organisers tried to cut corners here by assigning the handicapped lots to the VIPs, hoping that there would be no handicapped people attending the event. Of course this backfired in the worst possible way.

Comments in Sammyboy and MrBrown show an equal split in opinion on whether the organisers and/or the VIP was wrong. Additionally some felt Mr Om's response was uncalled for.

Imho who was right/wrong is not the essential issue here. It is about the dire lack of formal civil rights in Singapore coupled with a dire lack of knowledge of civil rights by the general populace. This is evidenced by the organiser's absolute negligence in handling such a matter. If a similar situation were to occur in US/EU there would have been a potentially more tremendous repercussion.

As ex-handicap commented, in the US, entities take great 'lengths [to ensure] public facilities go through to ensure free access to the wheelchair bound, from ramps to auto-open doors. It is a legally protected right.'

Simply put, if this incident had occurred in the US, it would have been a serious infringement of Mr Om's civil rights and he would be able to commence legal proceedings against the Organisers.

As such, this incident should be used as an example to highlight the importance of awareness to the existence of concepts alien to most Singaporeans such as civil rights which is sorely lacking, due to the traditional apathy of Singaporeans. While formal recognition of civil rights in the form of legislature may be too direct and sudden for our society (I will attempt a critic of the concept of civil rights and the potential abuse of such legislation in a future post), perhaps 'education' of civil rights in educational and employment institutions would be prudent since this has been proven to be the most effective way of getting an idea through to the standard apathetic Singaporean, rather than hoping for and relying on the 'common sense' and 'civic consciousness' of an individual.

The measures that the government has taken recently is laudable (eg, lifts installed in MRT stations) and shows that the government is adapting to recognise civil rights (albeit informally) which it failed to recognise previously (which is why MRT stations weren't originally built with lifts). If the organisers were more aware of the significance of such civil rights, they would never had opted to risk allocating the handicapped lots to the VIPs. In the end, they lost a bit of 'reputation', but it is trite compared to a lawsuit.

P.S For those who think that the VIPs are insensitive and are at fault, they fail to realise that the VIPs do not decide where they park. It is up to the organisers to arrange such trivial issues! If the VIPs choose not to park in the handicapped lots, they may be construed as 'being difficult' and not giving the organisers any 'face'. It also inconveniences both parties.

CasiYes or CasiNo

FACTS or Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore (haha what a 'clever' abbrieviation) have created a site for people to petition against the establishment of the casino in SG.

I was quite surprised that there were people who actually bothered to start a petition and even more so when thru Mr Brown I realised that the call for petitioning is quite successful going by the numbers who signed the petition.

Now, there are 2 issues which immediately came to my mind. Rather than focus on the debate whether a casino should be built or not, see shianux for a rebuttal to the petition, I decided to see for myself FACTS purported motives which would perhaps also uncover other collateral motives. So I headed down to their site.

Basically, the gist is that they assert a casino will bring 'negative energy' to Singapore, without further explaining how and why a casino brings 'negative energy' nor caring to define what 'negative energy' encompasses. Nevertheless casinos are usually depicted in popular mediums as seedy places ruled by the underworld with a good dosage of vices such as prostitution and money laundering where innocent victims are caught in a whirpool of debt and deception. As such I would take it that both the petitioners and the readers are supposed to adopt such a preconception of casinos, which, to be fair, is not too difficult.

Then I take a look at the 'founding members'. They are in sectors of employment which reputation and influence counts a lot. Starting a morally upright petition will certainly boost their goodwill and standing among people who may be important in their fields. Perhaps this petition will generate awareness both ways then, which is a very positive outcome indeed for the parties involved. But of course, this could be purely incidental as well and their status as family men is probably their actual justification for starting the petition.

Another issue which bogged me was – weren't they afraid of repercussions? Campaigning against government policies may be commonplace in other democracies but not in Singapore. Then again, this is not a direct attack; rather, it is a concern for their own welfare.

Indeed, FACTS is a unique and funny example of how the Government's conservative policies actually backfired on itself! Usually, it is the People who are more liberal than the Government, but in this situation, it is the other way round! It looks as if the Government's conservative policies have succeeded all to well there. Perhaps, when radicals called for the Government to adopt more liberal policies, the Government was right to state that change must take place slowly.

That said, it is almost likely that the Government will proceed on with its plans for a casino. While most conservatives may cry foul over the soiling of their lands with the taint of casino's 'negative energy', i suggest that their fears are over-exaggerated. A single casino on an offshore island will not have enough influence to drastically change the social climate. It would be of course different if there is a proliferation of casinos in every estate of Singapore. A point of note is that casinos are ubiquitous in most cities but there is no evidence of a link with increased social problems.

If the casino's generation of income would result in lower income taxes for us, I would be more welcome to the idea of a casino in SG. However, somehow, just somehow, I fail to see this happening.

In summary, discussion of a (1)casino's establishment and the (2)purported perils are very much a moot point since (1)there is no doubt that it will be established, opposition to it notwithstanding, however, opposition's fears are misplaced because (2)the impact of its establishment will be far lesser, even to the point of being negligible, than what people fear.

The Big Winners of the Tiger Cup

Singapore beat Indonesia 5-2 on aggregate! Woohoo!

But who are the biggest winners of the Singapore team's victory? The team? Their manager? The fans who turned up to watch the finals, including those who had absolutely no idea what the Tiger Cup was until Singapore hosted Myanmar in the semis?

No.

The Big Winners of the Tiger Cup was the Singapore Government.

National sports definitely bring in nationalistic and patriotic pride, which is of course a positive asset in any country. Success in winning the Tiger cup definitely brought Singaporeans something to cheer about. Of course, the government benefits because this means even more loyal and patriotic Singaporeans. Such victories of course bring positive vibes to society and happy people means more productive people (in more ways than one).

Furthermore, the government has reason to brag about one policy which is not too popular with the indigenous population. That is, the 'foreign talent' policy. The success of the team was in no small part due to the skills contributed by Dave Bennett, Agu Casmir and Itimi Dickson. Thus, the government can gleefully point to the Tiger Cup triumph as evidence that the foreign talent policy is a successful and good policy (conveniently forgetting Edgar Goncalves who absconded back to his origins after his playing days were over of course).

PAP 1 Detractors 0

UPDATED: [excerpt]'Besides youth development, the FAS Technical Director also attributes the success to the foreign talent scheme'

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050117/5/singapore127796.html

Evidence of trumpeting their policy - I recall other articles covering this aspect more directly but I can't remember their source!