Saturday, April 30, 2005

The Community

The community in Singapore is small. So small, that everyone is linked to each other through friends or acquaintances, or at the very most, three or four degrees away.

As Agagooga has noted in his entry on Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Singapore blogosphere is undergoing a similar transcending – the blogosphere is finding increasing semblance of organisation and union through the good works of everyone @ Tomorrow.sg and Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle, to name just 2. In effect, a very distinct Singapore Blogosphere Community is slowly taking shape.

Picking up on CowboyCaleb's post which is inspired but perhaps somewhat self-contradictory at some parts, as highlighted by comments on his post, Agagooga goes on to observe that the communion of the blogosphere has resulted in everyone talking about the same events, everyone linking each other, everyone knowing each other. In other words, everyone converging on the same old few topics. In defence, it has to be said that the recent events (CZ, Infantile Saga, and erm..'AlkalineBeaker') certainly affects everyone in the Singapore blogosphere, and thus convergence on these topics is simply natural cause and effect.

Agagooga however laments what he perceives as the singularisation of the blogosphere and observes this as a Singaporean trait, in which Singaporeans are indulgent in all things Singaporean and nothing else, which results in a generic nexus.

A growing segment of the Singaporean blogosphere - in absolute, even if not relative terms - now seems incestuously small, just like Singapore itself, and the Singaporean diaspora - at least the Singaporean student diaspora. Everyone links to everyone else, everyone trackbacks everyone else, everyone talks about everyone else and everyone reads everyone else, especially the same few heavyweights. Perhaps it's a fetishism by Singaporeans of all things Singaporean.

Which I can't really deny – in a sense, we already observe this in other aspects of Singapore life, such as food courts, of which there are many in Singapore but whose variety does not differ much from the next. Or for that matter, the radio stations on our airwaves, of which the content offered by each station differs inconsiderably from the next. I would think that one's traits would naturally be reflected upon one's writings and as such there is no surprise that the blogosphere has evolved as such.

It would thus seem indeed that singularisation is taking place, rather than divergence. As I have noted previously the dearth of niche blogs is stark, however, other than the specific disapproval shown by Agagooga, most bloggers would see the communion of the blogosphere as a positive thing.

I would be inclined to agree with Agagooga, except that such natural evolution was bound to take its predestined path sooner or later. The advent of blogs has impacted the way the internet is used and the number of people jumping on the bandwagon is only bound to increase.

As such, both Agagooga's pessimism and CowboyCaleb's optimism may not be warranted. On one hand, Agagooga laments the singularisation while on the other, CowboyCaleb remarks that the blogosphere has reached 'saturation point', thus heralding a semblance of community with sites such as Tomorrow.sg .

I tend to fail to correspond in certain aspects on both counts. Firstly, Agagooga neglects to highlight the importance of blogging as a social tool in addition to its informational prowess. As such, a communal blogosphere will only serve to enhance its capability as a tool for social networking. Perhaps too, the entrance of a good number of new bloggers may leave the older bloggers aggrieved that their space have been invaded, but I suggest in all likelihood the opposite is true. Unlike real-space, internet space is limitless. There is equal room for 1 blogger or 100 bloggers. In addition, with the growing awareness of blogging, older bloggers who have already established a foothold in the blogosphere will only continue to grow and thrive (in terms of readership). Indeed, Agagooga laments the difficulties of separating the wheat from the chaff when there are countless blogs sprouting the same content. However, I suggest this can only be a good thing, because this provides more competition between bloggers, so that only the more outstanding ones will catch the eyes and interest of readers, leaving the rest in obscurity. This is a better scenario than having only poorly drafted sites simply because there are no other alternatives.

And in response to CowboyCaleb's assertation that the blogosphere has reached 'saturation point', I suggest that this is only the dawn of the Singapore Blogosphere Era. I further suggest that if one were to use a chronological timescale for the evolution of the Blogosphere, this would be circa 0 AD. What happened prior would be prehistory, and what awaits us is the future, where the blogosphere, with its apparent present convergence, will finally mature and sprout its branches, with niche blogs arising from the outer reaches of its branch. Agagooga's grievance (and mine too) about its convergence and present regurgitative nature would then be alleviated!

It is good that both CowboyCaleb and Agagooga have strong, albeit polarised, opinions on the future of the Singapore blogosphere. For they serve as fodder of consideration to the future of blogosphere.

A collateral point I wish to raise is CowboyCaleb's original post,in which he embraces the collectivity of the blogosphere, similarly raising demand of accountability from fellow bloggers by raising the CZ affair, by arguing that we are seen as one collective union.

However, if you go ahead and write something insensitive that upsets everybody, you’re going to give the rest of us a bad name. The people who do not blog, see us as a gang.

This tenuous assertation may not go down well in every corner of the blogosphere, especially since it conflicts with his previous paragraph as observed by commenter Edan.

I blog for me and nobody else. I just know you understand what I’m saying here because a blog is a very personal thing.

In this instance I would tend to settle for a middle ground approach, in which I feel that one should blog with the requisite responsibility that one would be expected to offer, but that this should be primarily motivated by self-accountability as opposed to accountability to other bloggers.

In conclusion, I wish to highlight the very irony of this post is, by reflecting on Agagooga's post, I have perhaps committed the sin which Agagooga had raised-

When something happens on or with one blog, the rest will be quick to pick up on it, spread the word, and pen some commentary, as if something had just happened to someone in the neighbourhood. Gossip and comments flow, just like in a MeatSpace neighbourhood. Wash, rinse and repeat recursively.

But the question remains: Is this necessarily a good or bad thing?

Thursday, April 28, 2005

A world of Disclaimers

I am seeing disclaimers sprout out all over the blogosphere, like mushrooms in a damp field after a gentle summer shower. I must say I am very amused/bemused by this phenomenon.

Do I dare also suggest, for some blogsites at least, that the disclaimers are put up as a symbol of defiance rather than actual fear of threat.

The satire goes on in the form of disclaimers.


UPDATE: I would like to take this opportunity to remind exuberant disclaimer users that disclaimers do NOT automatically absolve one totally of all responsibility, especially when the disclaimer is not constructed properly and/or placed at an easily accessible portion of the site.

In the same vein, discussing of sensitive topics MAY also lead to liability even if one chooses to use masked language and innuendo – so be careful.

[What is my disclaimer doing at the bottom of the page in mock serious language then? And why am I discussing hypothetical libel suits then?]

UPDATE 2: In seriousness, do check out the Singapore Blogger's Practical Guide to Minimising the Risk of Defamation Suits at SLMJD.

-

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Self-censure

Recent events on the blogosphere have been fast paced and very eventful, and it only serves to reinforce my cynicism. The events that have unfolded are both disheartening and frightening.

It is disconcerting to see how blogs are slowly being recognised and curtailed by the big boys. Most bloggers treat blogs as personal blogs (naturally and rightly so, I might add) but fail to appreciate the dangers of publishing content open to the entire world. In doing so, opinionated matters especially of a sensitive nature and/or relating to an identifiable individual or corporation are openly published and leaves the blogger in a very vulnerable position. Some application of tact or discernment is warranted but some things are beyond one's control. Especially after recent episodes, only the most naïve would continue to think that his words are not being monitored. This is no Conspiracy Theory, but as cliché as it sounds, Big Brother IS watching you. Even if you think you are secure behind a veil of anonymity, you are still traceable.

The crucial question is: how will mere mortals ever be able to appreciate all the responsibilities and liabilities incurred by publishing a blog? Indeed, like many aspects of cyberspace, there is still much uncertainty. Unfortunately it is never a defense to plead ignorance of the law, but is that fair to hapless individuals?

I'll be the first to admit: I have, to date, written under a pseudonym, mainly due to prevent potential repercussions on my 'real' life. To be frank, my intentions were never to start a blog site which offers the content it does so now. There are a couple of entries whereby I wince before I press the 'publish' button (including the previous entry) and indeed many more potentially sensitive ones which will never see the light of day. Yes, I very much practice self-censorship, I am quite aware of the dangers of airing one's opinions, having been burnt before. Indeed, I have steered clear of politics (no desire to be involved in such discussion), focusing on personal opinions from a layman's perspective. As it is, this site is first and foremost a personal site, in contrast to more journalistic-styled sites. Yes, some opinions are somewhat subjective, and although striving towards objectivity is laudable, we are, after all, normal layman, unlike professional reporters who, indeed in certain domestic publications, more often than not give skewed subjective opinions masked in objective language as well. Absolute objectivity is the Serpent's Lie, because to be truly objective, one will need to encompass the viewpoints of every individual in the whole world, since everyone is uniquely individual. That is, of course, quite impossible. As such, it is all a matter of degree, with esteemed publishers tending toward absolute objectivity, as opposed to layman blogs which offer much more subjective material.

Pretty much because I do not have any ulterior agenda other than to air my opinions, I have, as far as its reasonably possible, try to remove references to distinct identifiable persons or objects, preferring to use satirical, hypothetical or theoretical examples, primarily for 2 reasons: Self-preservation and Disengagement.

While The Singapore Commentator rightly says that 'satire not a good substitute for serious discussion' when important issues are at hand, and states that it is often used as 'disguised rants', on the flipside, satire often protects and softens the blow, and gives one leeway in expressing unbridled opinion whereupon otherwise there would be no opportunity of doing so without exposing oneself to susceptibility. I believe in adaptation. To ensure one's own survival, one must adapt to the circumstantial surroundings. As it is commonly known in Singapore it is prudent to exercise discretion when airing potential sensitive views, hence the proliferation of sites such as Talkingcock and Mollymeek. Like it or not, thats the way it is here.

While I am admittedly somewhat anti-establishment, I have no time or desire to launch a 'crusade' to 'right' the 'wrongs' of society. I do not think its worth forsaking my family, friends, career, and goals (incidentally very different from what may be construed from this blog). Unfortunately, this is a sentiment shared by many fellow Singaporeans. Rather than being apathetic or infantile, it is just not worth the sacrifice. Whether such a situation is 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't really matter. What matters is that the situation is such and we just have to deal with it.

*Note that 'right' and 'wrong' are inherently relative and subjective as well. What may be 'right' to me may be 'wrong' to you.

And those few who choose to take up such a thankless task are either shot down, compromised, or most commonly, join the very establishment they were previously opposed to.

The vicious cycle goes on.

*Oh yeah and I shall also add a disclaimer on the sidebar, for what its worth.

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Hypothetical Libel

A hypothetical blogger, AlkalineBeaker, who runs the site Sarcastic Na2C03, has apparently been hit by the threat of legal action from a seemingly innocuous post regarding a fellow blogger's retraction and apology for his statement.

While there is apparently no libelous material (to me, at least, it seems innocuous enough, nothing beyond the norms of free speech), I do have a suspicion it may have something to do with some of the comments.

From what little I know in this area of law, if the material is found to be libelous, even if its from the comments, he will be liable, if he does not take the necessary steps to remove it as soon as he is alerted to the offending material. Likewise, his service provider (the host of where his blog is sited) will be similarly culpable. This cannot be disclaimed, but it can be excused.

Although the threat of legal action probably stems from a Hypothetical Nation (hereby HN) in which AB and his site is not currently based in, he will still be liable within HN's jurisdiction. Whether HN can actually enforce the threat, is of course another matter altogether.

However, the threat of legal action is simply bully-boy tactics, one often used by big corporations and the likes to intimidate and force people into submission. It is unlikely that a legal action will be commenced, and in the even more unlikely situation that AB actually attends trial, the hypothetical claimant from HN will prevail, because he is from HN. In other nations, there wouldn't even be grounds for a legal suit.

Of course, it is also unlikely that the hypothetical claimant actually wishes to commence proceedings. As espoused above, it is just used as an intimidatory tool to force AB into submission, to silence him. Furthermore, if the claimant has an axe to grind with AB due to other issues, he may be all the more willing to 'monitor' AB and seize any opportunity to bring him down. In this hypothetical scenario, this may just be the case.

Keep in mind, if AB is merely a student who is emerging into the working world, with nary a penny and experience in the real cruelties of the corporate and political world, this will be extra intimidating. Then there is also the side issue that such an action will not only stain AB's reputation, but also affect his studies.

Powerful People (PP) abusing the judiciary is a commonplace occurrence, but that doesn't make it right. But it also serves to warn normal layman bloggers like you and me about the perils of free speech. This may also serve to warn us that as mere mortal bloggers, we are pretty much susceptible once we accidentally step on PP's toes. Even more so if HN and PP in HN are very surveillant and vengeful. Maybe we must band together to protect ourselves. Strength in numbers. Besides watching our words, we should stop our zealous infighting and band together against the real threat. For example, if some other bloggers choose to post, say, racist comments, then what we should do is to settle the issue between ourselves. Eg, post a comment or send an email and highlight one's grievances with him, and see the response. An apology and retraction would suffice. There is no need to take the matter to other authorities – and hence out of our hands – we are feeding one of our own to the crocodiles.

*I am just thinking aloud about a hypothetical scenario that is playing in my head at the moment. Any similarities to real persons or situations are purely coincidental.
*Discerning comments with a large dose of tact is most welcome
*Thankfully this is only a hypothesis. I am fortunate enough to reside in SG, where there is excellent systematic justice in place.

Friday, April 22, 2005

The Singabloodypore Blogosphere

*The terms 'mature' and 'infantile' are used in the same context as Steven.

Over at Singabloodypore Steven asserts that the majority Singaporean blogs are 'infantile' and goes on to cite 'Xiaxue' and 'Mr Brown' as two examples.

While I do not agree with the examples he has highlighted and shall explain below, I tend to agree with his general observation. The number of 'mature' blogs which deal with 'important' socio-political issues are few and far between. Mostly blogs deal with inane aspects of their life, concentrating on leisurely pursuits, day's work or emotions.

If the Singapore blogosphere is anything to go by, then 'mature' blogs are surely greatly outnumbered by 'infantile' blogs. I am also inclined to observe that the blogosphere could actually serve as a microcosm of Singaporean's mindsets in general. The proportion of 'mature' bloggers to 'infantile' bloggers would not be out of line with the proportion of 'mature' people compared to 'infantile' people in our general populace. My insinuations about the mentality of most Singaporeans can be thus derived from these assertations, although it is hardly fair to label someone 'infantile' just because one is not predisposed to 'mature' issues. However, it is in all probability that any blogosphere, including the 'US Blogosphere' or 'UK Blogosphere' has a similar proportion of 'mature' to 'infantile' blogs as well, simply because not everyone is predisposed to the same inclinations as Steven would like it to be in his perfect world.

However, what I disagree with Steven is his tendency to relate that blogs should only serve as a harbinger of 'mature' information, opinions and comments. Perhaps somewhat condescendingly, he insinuates that usage of blogs in other forms may be deemed 'infantile'.

Steven fails (or at least shuts his eyes) to the fact that there are a myriad of purposes for blogging. Many choose to blog to share their personal lives with friends. Others choose to share jokes, sites or other 'lighter' material. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. A blog is not just a source for information, it is also a source of leisure and entertainment. It is an outlet for expression, for exhibitionism, and perhaps Steven may not be too well aware, in Singapore it is in many ways a crucial social communication tool as well (due to the primarily reserved nature of Singaporeans). While development of the mind through 'mature' thought-provoking issues on contemporary affairs is crucial, similarly important is the development of one's character socially. If people choose to use blogs to derive that, I would not hold it against them.

That said, to suggest that these people are 'infantile' is also unfair. We cannot expect everyone to create blogs for the sole purpose of having a predisposition to current affairs, or so called 'mature' blogs.

What I suggest then, is that there is a severe lack of niche blogs in the Singapore blogosphere. There are a few with deal with a niche aspect of society- for example Days are the Those, which deals with army life – although most are generally rambling ons about their lives. Perhaps Steven should be more inclined towards suggesting that there is a dearth of niche blogs pertaining to contemporary issues – which I agree with totally – as opposed to suggesting that the dearth of blogs in this niche represent an 'infantile' mindset.

Why do I not agree with Steven that MrBrown and Xiaxue are examples of 'infantilism'?

Firstly, a lot of credit has to go to MrBrown, for being one of the real pioneers of the blogosphere. Even before the existence of blogs, MrBrown was there, as a pioneer of freedom of expression, offering his by now famous Singapore National Education (SNEs). He first posted in newsgroups, and then maintained a static website, which is decidedly inconvenient as compared to the ease of blogging today. He is, in some way, the LKY of the Singapore blogosphere.

If one bothers to trawl through his older articles (in Brownlands), you would see that Mr Brown is indeed a man who is in the know of contemporary events. He presents his opinions on contemporary affairs in an excellent satirical manner. However, what co-transpires during his ascent to fame is his consequent desire to appeal to a wider audience. Perhaps his status as a married man has also changed his outlook somewhat, but one thing is clear, he has mellowed 'for the wider audience'. In a sense, if one takes Steven's 'mature' viewpoint, his content has been severely compromised. This is not due to MrBrown's fault, per se, but his readers, those who cannot accept or understand his more subtle 'refined' articles. In a way, he has become a sell-out, but only if his 'origins' are anything to measure his blogging intentions by. Just like 'artistic directors' who move on to produce mainstream Hollywood movies.

As for Xiaxue, I would similarly (but perhaps surprisingly to some) spring to her defence. As we all know, her controversial, brash style of writing upsets many readers. However, her fame is unprecedented, even when compared to Mr Brown. In other words, her voice and power over the Singapore blogosphere is second to none. As much as the 'mature' bloggers would wish they exerted a similar sphere of influence, I shall make the following proclamation:

Even if all the 'mature' bloggers 'combined forces' together to rival Xiaxue's influence, Xiaxue will still prevail.

And her voluminous influence is one that 'mature' blogs will probably never emulate, unless they go the 'way of the Brown', simply because this is and will always be a niche market and the interests level toward a niche market will never be comparable to 'mainstream' content such that offered in Xiaxue.

However, Xiaxue's influence is also very much crucial for blogs in general, including 'mature' blogs. While some observers have commented that 'Xiaxue is the Tabloid to Brown's Newspaper', Xiaxue's site introduces many to the world of the blogosphere, and while predominantly personal in nature, has also covered issues such as nationalism, religion and other social matters, albeit in a personal subjective way. And in doing so, provoked comments and opinions, up to a few hundred in some cases. While most of the comments and opinions are decidedly amateurish and immature, the crux of the matter is that people make comments and opinions.

Rather than taking Steven's perspective that blogs should reflect 'mature' as opposed to 'infantile' content, I take the view it is alright to deliver 'amateurish' opinions on social matters, as opposed to not even bothering or attempting to do so. To bother to voice one's opinions is the start to involvement with social contemporary issues. Keep in mind that most of the readers are probably in their early-mid teenage years. We cannot expect them to deliver an opinion or comment which is of equal 'standard' as that of a 'mature' individual. But the fact that Xiaxue is available to 'provoke' them into commenting, is something praiseworthy and not to be treated lightly. In other words, Xiaxue's blog functions a crucial entrance point, a stepping stone for people new to the blogosphere, perhaps even a stepping stone for some towards this 'mature' niche in the blogosphere.

*Full credit to Steven to wisely pinpoint MrBrown and Xiaxue, the 2 flagships of the Singapore blogosphere, to ensure maximal provocative effect to get his point across.

Synopsium at From a Singapore Angle

Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle is organising what we hope to be the first of many synopsiums, in a sense putting into action what I have envisioned before.

Full credit must be given to him for his enthusiasm and willingness to devote time for all our benefit. If you would like to contribute or know sources who may be able to contribute, please do so.

This current synopsium, incidentally, deals with the Casino issue.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination (BARD)

With the failure of FACTS – Family Against Casino Threat in Singapore to prevent the government from deciding to 'bulldoze its way' and build casinos (IR)s in Singapore, I have taken it upon myself to form the BARD – Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination.

Reverse discrimination - Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group ie Singaporeans in Singapore

Yet again, the Government has demonstrated their arrogant and avaricious nature in this episode. Lets face it, from the moment the casino was announced, only the most naïve among us doubted its eventual implementation. Yet, the Government, like a master puppeteer, managed to pull the strings in their favour once again. Allowing for people to voice out their concerns, allowing for people to speak out against it. That way, the citizens should be 'satisfied' that their voices had been heard and considered. Yet, the refusal to allow a referendum demonstrates their appallingly transparent lack of sincerity on this issue. Paying lip service to our concerns with regards to the feasibility of a casino, and patronising us with contradictory reassurances was the first Insult heaped upon us. Announcing the decision to install not 1 but 2 'integrated resorts' merely doubles the effect.

But assuring us that we are mature enough to have a casino and then imposing a $100/entrance or $2000/annum fee is simply spitting in our faces. I shan't point out the deficiencies of their rationale since it is already quite transparent to the masses and covered in various places.

It is not the quantum of the fees that is the issue at hand here. The fact that there is a tariff for local citizens but not for foreigners is yet another fallacious example of reverse discrimination in Singapore.

It may come to a surprise to Singaporeans, but in a democratic society, a government's primary function is to serve the citizens of the country. In other words, we vote for what we want, and they implement it. In most parts of the world, too, there is preferential treatment given to its citizens, or at the very least, equal treatment.

I reckon, no country, not even countries like North Korea, adopt such self-discriminatory measures – foreigners are not even allowed into North Korea, for example (not that many foreigners would want to go there, but thats another story). Contrast Singapore, where foreigners with the slightest hint of 'talent' are given free reign to reap our fields – and take it back home, leaving us indigenous souls with whatever scraps are left. There is much parallelism which can be observed between the foreign talent policy and the tariff for entry to these casinos.

This imposition is ludicrous because it simply means that we incur a penalty just for being Singaporean. In our supposed home country of Singapore, no less.

We are made to endure the social costs arising from casinos, without the corresponding social benefits. In other words, the government is again exploiting us, at our social cost, for their own economic benefit, as opposed to our (both us and government) economic (and social) benefit. They are installing something that has both positive and negative features, but we must bear the brunt of the 'negativity' and pay a price to enjoy it, while they enjoy the 'positives'.

Even if its 'justifiable' on the grounds that the purpose is to keep out the 'poor' people, which imho is ludicrous, because it simply conflicts with the 'Singaporeans are mature enough to handle a casino in Singapore' rationale adopted by the government, I suggest that such a method is misconceived and prone to backfire. In all likelihood, those predisposed to gambling will find the way to access the casino (eg using desperate measures to secure the amount needed for entrance). Alternatively, they may simply return to their original hangouts in Genting, etc, which also defeats the rationale that a local casino will keep gambling consumption (and hence revenue) within the country's economy.

While I do not agree with the justification of the tariff, if the government has to insist on taking measures to 'protect the poor', alternative measures could be used.

One measure is to actually restrict or admit people in on an individual basis. Naturally, those excluded will include bankrupts and those with evidence of financial incapacity. In addition, the gambling habits of the individuals may be monitored, so as to detect potential compulsive gambling syndrome. Dare I also suggest, to actually imposing a 'cap' on the losses accrued. Once someone loses above a certain amount, he is denied access or asked to leave the casino. (Of course, this will never happen, not even in the few parallel dimensions hovering close to us)

In certain countries, there is the legislative requirement for casinos to ensure that gamblers who have been gambling for some time are asked if they should stop. While mostly this becomes obligatory lip-service, such measures may be well enacted in Singapore's proposed casinos as well.


Conclusion

The imposition of the artificial tariff is ill-conceived and self-discriminatory. The go-ahead for the casino has and will breed some discontent among certain portions of the community. I suggest that the tariff, as an obvious source of reverse discrimination will only serve to breed more resentment and discontent among the citizens. This commentator would also like to suggest that the government, even if it chooses to adopt a purely economical utilitarian approach, should perhaps look a bit beyond immediate economic benefits, and consider the long term economical repercussions which may result from breeding resentment within their own local populace. While Singaporeans are renowned as an apathetic, passive sort, the fact that there has been much public debate and even groups such as FACTS suggests that this is perhaps an unprecedented issue, in the sense of stirring awareness in normally servile Singaporeans. If implementation of the casinos is a must, at least drop the ill-conceived tariff.

*This commentator also wishes to acknowledge that, perhaps somewhat ironically, the imposition of the tariffs may in part be due to acquiescing those who adopt an anti-casino stance. In a way, the measure can be also taken to 'show' the anti-casino persons that 'potentially vulnerable' persons are taken care of (by denying them easy access to the casino).

**Do also note that I do not actually wish to form the 'BARD'. I just thought that it was an amusing acronym. This is a semi-satirical article -so please pardon the harsh tone in certain portions of the essay as well. Cheers.

Monday, April 18, 2005

An alternate Framework to Monogamous Marriage

*In case you are wondering this article is satirical in nature, partly due to the reason is a constraint of time and effort prevents me from offering a better researched framework.
*It can/will only work in a world where all adults are financially independent
*I do not advocate it
*It is an advancement of frameworks proposed by real academics whose names elude me at the moment

So if the very essence of monogamy is unnatural and its purpose undermined, why are we still practicing (or at least, pretending, to practice monogamy?) Of course it is still very much the norm and there are still many traditional families that harness its beneficial arrangements, but at the rate contemporary society is progressing, we may perhaps better off exploring viable alternatives to monogamy. Are there any other plausible “social structures” that could work, which emphasises on individual liberty but is not completely self centered and protects the crucial interests of childbirth and child nurturing?

Here is a simplified version of a framework I envision for the (not-so) near future which requires a few structures in place (ie they complement each other and should be read as one entirety rather than individually)

The crux would be the focus on the 'children contracts' (admittedly a more pleasant term should be coined for it) as opposed to a marriage and the inclusion of recognition of the rights of homosexual's right to children. Such a framework takes care of homosexual rights, the right to children, the right not to have children, the right to choice of one or multiple partners, and also the issue of population regeneration.

Liberal culture

Borrowing heavily from the hippies, there are no constraints or limitations towards absolute sexual liberation. Rather than staying committed to a single partner, everyone may have consensual sexual relations with anyone else without falling foul of the law. When a child is born, they can either be sent to a 'nurture agency' or be cared for under terms of a 'child contract'.

Children Contracts

Rather than instituting the union of two individuals (ie marriage), a legal agreement is reached between two parties upon conception of a child. A contract determining the terms of the child's welfare such as how the child is taken care of and how much each of them must contribute to his upkeep are agreed upon. These give both parties the freedom to move on to other partners if they desire, without the implications of divorce. They can also opt to stick together, and on their decision to have another child, simply go through another contract.

Genetic Agencies

Rather than marrying and raising a family, perhaps it is possible that there are “genetic agencies” which collect both male sperm and female eggs. Any persons of legal age may be obliged to deposit genetic material.*

Naturally, genetic data will be identifiable but confidential. When a donor wants a baby, he will select a donor of the opposite sex's egg or sperm to create the baby. He will have to get the consent of the other party and as such it is usually the case that the two parties will know each other.

If both parties are agreeable, they sign a contract on which terms such as how the child is taken care of (see above) and how much each of them must contribute to his upkeep are agreed upon. The genetic material is processed by completely artificial means and is an 'artificial' version of the Child Contract above.

Additionally, an 'opt-in' clause will permit a person to allow his genetic material to be used 'publicly'. In other words, the genetic material will be on a list which is open to potential 'genetic donees', those who may not have individual consenting partners.

This again is superior to a monogamous institution because minority lifestyles and rights are not infringed upon.(eg, homosexual couples and individuals). Provided they qualify, they are entitled to be a donee of genetic material and consequently parent to a child.

In addition to the 'child contract', a genetic bank would mean that 'superior' genetic material can be harnessed and propagated to ensure high quality children.*

*Obligation to donate genetic material may be deemed to infringe on individual liberty but it is a small price to pay for the amount of liberty gained in other ways.

Nurture Agencies

To complement these factories, nurture agencies could be implemented. These agencies will have specialists trained in the art of bringing up, teaching and caring for children. Thus if a baby is conceived, and neither parent has time or is willing to take care of him/her, he can be designated to these private or state-run nurture agencies. Hey, wait a minute, this sounds a bit like those child care agencies. However, in the future, the bleak outlook for monogamous marriages would mean that rather than merely having 'part time' agencies, 'full time' agencies who will be the children's nurturers will be essential (not unlike an orphanage). This will eliminate any possible chance of child abuse, neglect, slavery or abandonment.

These nurture agencies should be State run agencies and/or private institutions. The agency will have the responsibility of nurturing the child until he is self-sufficient. The accrued costs will be supported in turn by higher tax rates. In turn, the taxes will be spread out fairly among the populace, rather than having a disproportionate burden on parents in the current monogamy system (parents expenditure on children as compared to swinging single lifestyles)


Undoubted, this 'alternatate' framework has a somewhat hedonistic tendency.

It may seem inferior to a traditional monogamous marriage (one provider, one nurturer) structure, but i wouldn't say the same for a dual-provider marriage.

In such a framework, everyone, including the minorities, are taken care of and afforded equal treatment.

Those who prefer a traditional marriage framework,ie people predisposed to one life partner do not have their lifestyles compromised in such a framework. They can simply stick together, and adopt the 'Child contracts' whenever they have children. This requirement is necessary for the welfare of the child. There is no corresponding divorce proceedings, since this framework is envisioned for a future whereby all individuals are self-sustaining, making such a concept obsolete.

People predisposed to a childless lifestyle do not totally shirk their responsibilities of propogation by their obligations to donating their genetic material.

People who want to have children but are unable to for physiological or otherwise reasons are likewise able to bring up a child.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Monogamy

In today's world it is perhaps the norm to have just one partner in marriage. However, this has not been the case in times past. Ancient chinese emperors had hundreds of concubines. Indeed, just a few generations back, our great-grandparents usually had more than a single wife. In modern day, Islamic law still permits a man to have four wives.

So why is monogamy the standard practice in society today? Is monogamy the 'natural' way of life for humans? Certainly, in the animal kingdom, only a small percentage of animals practice monogamy, and it is because of practicality rather than fidelity that they do so.

But what about us humans? It is a cultural and societal norm that we are attuned towards a marriage involving 2 parties and thus we may think it is the 'natural order' of things. But if so, why is there a prevalence of adultery? If commitment to a life partner is 'in the natural order of things', there will hardly be the not-so secret temptation of extra-maritial sexual relationships.

It is of course common knowledge between the sexes it is man who have more inclination to commit adultery. This is due to the inherent nature of the sex, where sperm production is cheap and his primal instinct is to spread his seed (and genetic material) to as many as possible. In contrast, women are the ones who have a finite fertility period. Furthermore, they are the ones who will bear the child should they be impregnated, along with the responsibility of nurturing them. Naturally, they are more inclined to be picky or choosy about who they develop sexual relationships with.

*Sidetrack: For people who have always pondered the age-old paradox of 'how is it possible that more men than women are having illicit sex? Shouldn't the numbers be the same?' should always consider the Village Bicycle Theorem.

Similarly it is also common knowledge that attractive individuals get more interest sexually. However, while attractive females will choose only the 'cream of the crop', attractive males will take advantage of their superiority to spread their seed around as much as possible. Thus, an attractive male will not only 'get the girl' but he will get all the girls.

So where does that leave the mediocre males? Thats right. They get nothing. Winner takes all. That is why the Emperor gets all the Concubines and the peasants toil in the fields with scant reward. Perhaps this is also why monogamy was introduced.

Our contemporary society is hardly like those of days past. These days, we champion democracy, equality. While actual equality is an impossibility, laws and norms strive toward such a structure. To be fair to all the men and women, the law of marriage decrees that each person is only entitled to one partner. Monogamous marriage is a contract between two individuals, an institution incorporated in response to the modern social climate. Which is all well and good for the previously mediocre men and women, since they are now handed a better chance in an even playing field. Rather than the Alpha Male getting all the babes, theoretically he is only entitled to one. Therefore everyone has an 'equal' chance to each stake their claim on a partner.

Of course, the genetic quality of our species will be compromised, but this is partially negated because a monogamous relationship structure is a very ideal environment in to nurture a child. Nature (genetic) and Nurture are equally important in a child's development. One partner, the breadwinner, brings in the dough. The other partner, the nurturer, takes care of the children, giving them the love that is so essential in the developing years of a child. The ideal family.

However, the emphasis towards materialism has perhaps cast serious doubt on this once great medium to raise a child. These days, it is not enough for one parent to be working. Usually, both parties are out working, leaving the child to the attention of a third party, usually a nanny or child care centre. Thus the very basis for this family structure is undermined. Rather than task specialisation, each contributing to an aspect of family life, there is an oversupply of providence and a consequent undersupply of nurture. The highly artificial nature of monogamy then becomes farcical. And this is not even considering the even uglier aspects of a divorce.

[Of course, this is an extreme pessimistic view. There are many successful marriages out there which do not fall within this bleak scenario]

*To be continued
*For purposes of this essay, issues of companionship are not considered. Drop a comment if you wish to hear my views on companionship issues.
*For purposes of this essay, Monagamy refers to a legally recognised marriage between two individuals of the opposite sex.

Postnote: Many thanks to HUICHIEH who shared an article by J.Morse, who takes a 'libertarian' perspective and argues that marriage is a natural and necessary social institution. I have read the article only after completion of this essay. Many points raised here already rebutts her myopic generalisations especially pertaining towards the 'spontataneous natural tendency of marriage' and the inability to differentiate between a legalised union between 2 parties and a union between 2 parties by pure informalised consent, ie non-married coupling. In addition her language reeks of putting forward points in favour of an idealistic hypothetical perfect marriage as opposed to a realistic marriage. I may attempt a counter-rebuttal to other points she raises in a future post (if I have the time).

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Should marriage be recognised?

As I have mentioned in the previous post the increasing influence of the homosexual community means that soon the voice of gay activists would be increasingly heard. One such right championed is the right to legally marry a person of the same sex. Indeed, in countries such as Holland, same-sex marriages are legally recognised, but generally even in 'Western' nations, this has been a highly taboo subject. (However, wrt aforementioned 'Western' nations, I do feel it is but a matter of time before 'homosexual marriages are recognised).

My opinion towards 'homosexual marriages' is similar to the reasoning found in the Anal Philosopher's rebuttal to Sullivan on Homosexual Marriage.

Of course, a demand for equal rights for homosexuals to be able to register their marriage allows me to again emphasise a fallacy of the concept towards 'equal rights'. If homosexuals start to demand the right for same-sex marriages, it will be only a matter of time before we start to accept bestial marriages, incestuous marriages, etc. The floodgates are open...

While most will think the idea of a 'bestial' marriage or an 'incestuous' marriage preposterous, please remember that it was only a while ago that 'homosexuality' was similarly a preposterous concept. And just a while before that, the idea of a non-domesticated female was similarly trashed upon.
This will lead to a never-ending 'fight for equality' which I have already demonstrated as idealistic and inherently flawed. Even if marriage is finally legally recognised between ANY two individuals, be it between man-woman, man-man, man-cow, or man-sister, there is still discrimination against asexuals and/or singles, since they have no one to 'marry'. Since marriage is a union between 2 individuals, there is no way that someone can marry himself...(that is not even conceptually possible, at least to me)

If equality is what everyone wants, why not just abandon the whole concept of marriage? Marriage has always been an artificial human instrument, and to facilitate equality, why not just forget about the whole doctrine of matrimony? It will be fair and equal to everyone, then. [This illustrates another fallacy of 'equality' treatment – to achieve equality, the best way is to take away any benefits or advantages which particular individuals/groups enjoy. How 'fair' or 'feasible' that is to the individual/group, is of course another story altogether. In this case a sizable number of people will be inconvenienced, to say the least]

Doing away with an age-old tradition which is such a norm in our society? Ludicrous? Perhaps not. While marriage works for a number of individuals, as I demonstrated there is an increasing number of people who are denied the rights accorded to married people. As I have also illustrated in a prior post, there is reason why a heterosexual relationship merits 'reward' from the government.

However, there is also evidence that the traditional framework of a marriage may no longer be the most suitable in today's societal environment, in particular the concept of monogamy (to be considered in next post).

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Miss Foreign Talent Singapore

Looking at the current batch of MSU (Miss Singapore Universe) finalists one cannot help but feel critical. I mean, it is easy to criticise others, of course, but just look at it this way – they are after all taking part in a beauty pageant – there is no point saying nice words about them if they are, quite simply, not nice. From present and past MSUs, it is easy to conclude that while most contestants may have nice, pleasant features suitable for the girl-next-door beauty, there is still much to be achieved in way of elegance and poise, to be able to exude confidence and to carry the responsibility of representing our country (or world).

There is also no need to feel insulted and tell me 'If u think they are ugly then look at yourself – you think you very good looking issit?' Nope, actually I don't. Perhaps that could be the decisive factor in why I have never taken part in any beauty pageants.

However, this is not the point of this post. Being a revolutionary of sorts in my own mind and no one else's, I thought of a great idea, inspired by our great gov, on how SG contestants can finally make an impact in the international version of the show. How about...we get foreign talent (FT) to represent us? Thats right, if we can get FT for all sorts of things including representing our badminton, football, and table tennis teams in major competitions, why not Miss Universe as well?

Of course, the criteria for such potential FT must be strict – they must simply be model material, full of elegance and poise, kind on the eye and good with the mouth (i mean articulately ...no other innuendo intentioned). Recruit about a dozen of them and throw in a few locals to appease critics who will predictably complain that this competition is 'no longer a local affair'. Importantly there must be 3 chinese, 1 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian token contestants taking part so that the racial ratio is kept as balanced as possible, just like in schools, etc, just the way our gov likes it. Of course, they will stand no chance against one of the foreign FT (since they are after all, specialised Ms Universes.)

With the FT representing us, we will finally have a chance of actually progressing up to the Last 4, but history suggests that going any further than that may just be beyond these FTs.

But at least the objective is set: Benefits include putting Singapore on the global awareness list again, so that they won't think we are from some province in China. Or it may just backfire, because they may be confused by the FT representing us who, due to their overseas roots, may not exactly be the most representative individual for our culture.

So what happens to the FT after the MSU pageant is over? Well, as they are all good lookers they will possibly contribute to the birth rate as well, since superficial Singaporean males will be more inclined to marry a pretty lass.

After weighing all the factors, I conclude that we should get FTs to represent us at Miss Universe!