Repeal 377A and Thio Li-Ann, on why the 2 sides can't agree and freedom

*Dr Thio Li-Ann speech can be read here together with commentaries.

A lot can be, and indeed has been said on the debate. To find out more, and you should, goggle is your friend (Try 377A, or Thio Li-Ann). I have wanted to comment on this issue, but was too busy, and frankly, not smart enough to add anything new. But now that the sound and fiery has died down a little, and with the advantage of hindsight, I'll attempt to share what I picked up on this

1."You cannot make a human wrong a human right."
The prime minister was right. What he was right about that prompted this unique occurrence (me agreeing with him that is) was this: "Neither side is going to convince the other."

Why?

Because both sides (over generalising from this point on, I admit), holds a different fundamental assumption.

One side don't think that homosexuality is wrong.
One side believes fundamentally that homosexuality is wrong.

There is no way, literally, to convince either side to the other position. How can both side even relate to the other side, or see where they are coming from, when their core assumption is so different? On one side, a group of people don't really see why a act is harmful enough to have a law against it, while another side sees the act as wrong and if I may, 'evil'.

There is no way to prove that homosexuality is wrong, nor is there to prove that it's not wrong. Because you can't prove a right or wrong! You judge a right or wrong! And both side are using a different system! Both side can bring out tons of arguments and counter-arguments and still fail to come to any agreeable conclusion, because all their conclusion are based on this core unchangeable assumption.

2."Repealing section 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties."

Extending logically the assumption that homosexuality is wrong and the notion "that which is evil has no rights", we can have a sense of where the anti-repeal people are coming from. The idea is that, an idea or action that is 'evil', 'wrong', or 'harmful' deserves no rights, no freedom, no protection. An example is terrorism, I suppose the terrorist has some reasons for doing what they do, but their message would never be aired, because their action are considered to be evil, and wrong. (And no, homosexuality is not like terrorism)

So the way I see it, the aim of the anti-repeal movement is to maintain the right to call homosexuality wrong. After all they understand that the law will not be actively, not to mention almost impossible to, enforce.(Although Dr Thio, does (chillingly) said that the current pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced. In my view, enforcement of it will be too much like a witch hunt.)

3."While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfills their heterosexual potential. There is hope."

And they do not see their stand as limiting the freedom of homosexuals. No, seriously. Dr Thio said that the gays are allowed "to live quiet lives". She is understanding freedom negatively, as freedom from constrains, gays can carry on with their life (admittedly as criminals) under our current system. But she is ignoring the positive side of freedom, which is the extent to which individuals have access to the means to fulfilled their needs and wishes. And surely, one has the rights not to be labeled a criminal to love, or the rights to be proud of who we are, or to speak in ones own defense?

4."some countries have criminalised not sodomy, but opposition to sodomy, making it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Quran, be criminalised? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated."

In fact Dr Thio seems particularly concerned that the rights of certain religions be compromise if 377A is repealed. This makes me very uneasy. First of all, there is this notion that if someone does something for 'religious' reason, it's right. But then, we all know the problem with that don't we? And second, we respect religious belief, anyhow people are going to think what they are going to think. But we still holds religious people responsible for their actions, even if God is on their side.

Happy Happy Joy Joy Parliament

I read this article on Little Speck: Too much self-praise, What Singaporeans want is some frank, value-added debate. By Seah Chiang Nee, The Star on Mar 24, 2007. [Link]
It reflected on a topic that I have been thinking about so I thought I'll post it here.

NEEDED in 21st Century Singapore: A new breed of articulate Members of Parliament who can match the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, S. Rajaratnam and David Marshall.

With few exceptions, today’s lot – whether in government or opposition – lacks that sharp tongue and fire in the belly that marked the previous generation of politicians.

As the Old Guards left one after another, they were replaced by young, co-opted technocrat-MPs, who were good problem solvers, but who lacked the passion and ability to motivate Singaporeans.

Neither are they good at debates or explaining policies in the pull-no-punches way that Minister Mentor Lee and his peers could do with ease.
The lack is fine as long as the PAP continues to enjoy the complete trust of voters the way that Lee had.

But his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is dealing with – and has to win over – better educated, more cynical citizens with very high expectations.

That requires the party to govern with more than top scholars and good policies; it also needs people with the power of persuasion.

After demolishing all strong opposition one way or another, Minister Mentor Lee has admitted that many young MPs lack the opportunities to learn the thrusts of political debate.

For its own survival, the PAP has to allow its MPs to speak frankly and openly on issues of the day, even if it is galling to the party.

It has another reason to do this. It has rejected the opposition playing a checks-and-balance role in the government, saying it can do it by itself. For this to be credible, observers say, it has to be seen doing it.

Most Parliament sessions here – unlike in Kuala Lumpur – have been tame, polite affairs involving prepared questions and answers, after which the MP would sit down to make way for another.

This was evident during the recent Parliament budget session that was to give important tax changes (GST up 2%) and rising poverty a proper airing.

Most government MPs spoke in favour of a rise in the unpopular Goods and Services Tax – no GST can be popular anywhere in the world – from 5% to 7%. Yet they made it sound like it’s the long-awaited salvation.

(The budget also provided offsetting payments, with the poor and older people getting a larger share, which will help to mitigate – for five years – the impact on the lower class).

Singaporeans are generally opposed to the GST increase, which is the centrepiece of the budget, and several government MPs pitched for more aid to the poor.

But the majority of backbenchers praised the budget, some in exuberant terms that are opposed to public sentiment.

Despite the leaders’ exhortations to MPs to speak their minds, not many had done so.

A sample of backbenchers’ exuberant praises included – “generous and forward looking”, “good intentioned” and “made in heaven”, “a landmark budget”, “wonderful”, “innovative” and “pragmatic.”

The generosity of the budget is possible under the stewardship of the ruling People’s Action Party, said one MP, sounding like a Pyongyang news headline.

Another remarked: “Nowhere else in the world can you get a budget which includes love and compassion in abundance as this one.”

Some young Singaporeans say they were turned off by these flowery but useless descriptions.

Even a commentator of the pro-government Straits Times, Chua Mui Hoong, was moved to call on the PAP MPs to go beyond “cheerleading”.

“Too much self-praise by the PAP is off-putting,” she wrote.

“An MP's role should include critiquing policies, voicing independent points of view and scrutinising the executive's decisions,” she said, adding that some did so, but they were a minority.

Former PAP MP Hwang Soo Jin, 71, related how a doctor had surprised him by asking why Parliament had bothered to debate the budget when the government had already decided to implement it.

Hwang wrote in the Chinese Lianhe Zaobao that there was a 'chasm' between Parliament and the people.

After Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, his successor, Goh Chok Tong had steadily eased up on control of people’s’ lives.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who took over from Goh, has pledged to continue the process.

Some feel Parliament could do with the return of several strong-minded ex-PAP backbenchers, who had the moral courage and skills to take on ministers.

They included former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Wang Kai Yuen, who have left behind an outspokenly biting legacy.

Soo Khoon once hit out at government wastage, targeting seven gr-and ministerial building projects, labelling them sarcastically as the “Seven Wonders of Singapore.”

He likened some of these gleaming new buildings to five-star hotels, which led him to wonder if the ministries were competing to see which of them could “be better than the Four Seasons Hotel.”

“(People) complain because they realise that if you spend so much money, then we will be taxed more. That's why people are unhappy,” he added.

Parliament is a stepping-stone for tomorrow’s leaders, which explains why MPs should be encouraged to use their flair.

Some analysts, however, believe that sustained periods of affluence and stability are not ideal to producing brilliant leaders; only chaos or wars can.

It was chaotic Singapore in the 50s and 60s that threw up leaders like Lee and his contemporaries – and that just can’t be re-created.

Enough said. Well I have to say that the Singapore Parliament does seems to be very boring, to me anyway. It looks, to me anyway, staged. Kind of like WWF. I use to believe that WWF were for real when I was young. I mean they look real, the people appears to be really fighting one another, they seems really passionate about what they are doing and stuff. But in the end, it's all a show. The outcome of the fights are always decided forehand. Kind of like the reality TVs we have nowdays. The results are not exactly surprising.

Maybe I am not been fair, but maybe been on the same political party does make it hard(er?) for you to disagree on policies. It seems that the MPs will come up all hot and enthusiastic on some issues like: "are you sure Singapore can support a the growing population?(6.5 millions)?", "are the welfare payment really enough?", "is there enough done to off-set the GST impact?", "our transport system, is it good enough?", blah... You know.

Then some ministers will come on and in a nut shell says: "yah, don't worry about it, we're good."

And then the MPs will be like: "Oh, really? ... Ok."

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

And our few oppositions are not really very impressive, frankly.

That's why its so hard for Singapore government to answer a question straight and not treat us like idiots.

There's no one to hold their feet to the fire and asks difficult questions and demand a straight answer.

Do you agree?

What's wrong with Singapore.

Our great leaders
The news for the last week has been mostly on the parliament debate, or the lack of it. Mr Brown made a list of the top 10 things our ministers and members of parliament said about the new budget. It was “soooo good”. The excellences of the budget aside.I have begun, sometime back, to take everything the government said with a pinch of salt. The reason is simple. I realise that everything that is been said, has an agenda. I mean, seriously, these are politicians. It’s doubtful even how much of their own opinions they can express, after all most of them are from the same party. What we have here is a system where a single party find its own member and through various means get the people they chose elected. It’s kind of a weird system in the sense that I don’t know how much of the people’s wishes are represented and how much the people actually wants the “chosen ones” to be their voices in parliament. Although I must also admit, it kindof work (I prefer it to the mess in US for a start). But there are drawbacks to everything.

Sense of Belonging
One of the drawbacks is that the people’s sense of belonging is eroded. If you can never have a say in a place, the place never really belongs to you. And this is a serious issue. And this issue will get increasingly serious with the influx of immigrants (6.4 million I heard?). The new immigrants, having just arrived have little if no sense of belonging or emotional attachment to Singapore. So the increase amount of new immigrants will reduce the total sense of belonging as a whole. While the current citizens on the island have a certain amount of emotion attachment, it too is reduced by an increase in the amount of “outsiders” in their country. It may not sound nice, but it’s true (and I don’t mean it in a bad way). The newcomers have their own language, habits, bla….and well I would said, Singapore as a general whole are not too happy with this invasion of their space. Anyway, the point is, the more different Singapore becomes, the less sense of belonging we can come to expect from the common man in the street.

The 10 years series.
What’s wrong with the 10 years series? Well recently MOE phased out the pre-1997 ten years series because the syllabuses have changed. Well, that’s pretty reasonable, but the students(and I suspect the parents) panicked. It was reported (thesundaytimes march 4 2007) that students are hunting 2nd hand book store for the old 10 years series. Prices have increased for those old books and I suspect(again) there will be a pirated maket going on soon enough. Kiasu? Yes, but more than that. Singapore students pass exams by doing 10 years series. To a point where if you want higher marks, do more 10 years series. I dare say if we ban 10 years series, Singapore students won’t know what to do. Why do I say that? The only subject without 10 years series is literature, which also happens to be the subject Singapore students score worse in. I suspect (yet again) that the concept of walking into an examination hall and expressing yourself without a prior answers to refer to scare the hell out of our students. “But what if I don’t put down the correct answers!!!” Personally, I hated 10 years series, never actually did any. I feel the over-reliance on 10 years series breed a generation of people who are good at memorising a given answer and sticking to it. Destroys ones confident of expressions. And forms a habit of doing the ‘correct’ thing, which may not be the right thing.

Censorship
So many things to say and examples to give. I’ll just give a recent one: Incredible wife makes disappearing act
What the fuck were they thinking?
Seriously, creative industries are going to have to play a great part in Singapore economy, after all our only resource is our people right? Well I just want to say that for creative individual, either everything goes or nothing goes.

Pirates and Emperor

Well Sadam Hussein kicked the bucket, thanks to his old friend Uncle Sam. Is oil the reason?


History of Oil: WWI, Iraq war...



There are crimes so big, there are no law against them.

Prime Minister dialogue and my crazy life

Finally got a chance to update my blog. The last 2 weeks have been C.R.A.Z.Y. I was having my reading week and was trying to catch up on my essays and readings. Didn't do as well in the catching up as I expected. How I wish I do not have to sleep, where's those sleep replacement pill that was featured in those science fiction novels?

Just turned in my philosophy essay, is working on my South East Asia reflection, and that's a dialogue I'm writing for chemistry class (it's a nonsensical convection between a guy name Ted and Mr. Methane), not forgetting my geography project which is a major worry for me, a couple of tests coming up, I'm also kind of worried about my South east Asia project, haven't thought of what to do yet. Whatever lah.

Moving on to R&R. Mid-Autumn is just around the corner, and I went to Chinese garden last friday to take some pictures of the lanterns. I'll also be going to Bishan park this friday for pictures taking and I'm not ashame to admit, lantern carrying. Mid-Autumn is my favourite festival of the year, just about the only festival I enjoy. On another note, I've planned a trip with some friends to Batam some time in November. Not very sensible since exams are held then, but I figured, what the heck.

I went to the Prime Minister dialogue, both the pre-dialogue discussion and the actual dialogue. I enjoyed myself, saw a couple of friends from NEA, met a few new ones and generally had a good time.

I find the actually dialogue more open that I've imagined, beside the few questioners that were 'appointed' during the pre-dialogue discussion, the prime minister opened the floor for questions. The answers were somewhat 'old hat', meaning that it's nothing we have not heard before but we were actively encouraged to speak up. My impression from the dialogue and talking to a MP at the reception is that there is a big question mark from the government as to why there is a lack of involvement and voices from the young people. Doesn't help that all the voices in the web seems to be against the ruling party. Dr Vivian mentioned that we have one of the most accessible government in the world, that all the MPs' and Ministers' emails are available to the public, and there are weekly meet-the-people session.

A teacher reflected there is a lot of fear of speaking out about race, religion and so on at the ground level. She wanted to set up a prayer area for Muslim students and the school respond is: "shhh!!!" No one dare to discuss it. I feel this has a lot to do with the government tough stand against anything that have to do with race and religion. The goal post shift so often and so sliently that most people just don't discuss it at all these days. I wonder if this is good for the long term healthy of our nation.

I didn't really take in much at the actual dialogue, reading the news have given me somewhat of a spider sense of what the respond will be like. There are a few interesting point I picked up at the pre-dialogue discussion. One guy raised the issue of what's the purpose of oversea volunteering programmes organised by schools and youth organisation? Is it to help the people there, or to educate Singapore students? The cost of sending a team of students oversea to repair fences and paint a school could probably build 2 new schools in the area. That is something for us to think about. possibly if the aim is for the benefit of the student in exposing them to different culture, the parents would be more supportive.

The question of race came up, very strongly. A girl with brown hair said she was booked by a prefect in JC for having dyed her hair brown. Problem is, she is born with brown hair. Her mother, being french I think, has brown hair. The JC prefect gave a master augment against her claim: "No, your surname is Lim, so you cannot have brown hair." Beautiful.

Another lady questioned the compulsory education of mother tongue based on your 'race' . What happened was that a boy who speaks Latin and English was shuffled into our education system and forced at the age of 10 to take Chinese classes. After a many appeals and letters to the MPs was he finally allowed to drop the subject.

Many such responds followed. Inter-race marriage is the norm, globalisation...The common 'CMIO' Chinese, Malay, Indian, others division is been questioned by many as irrelevant in today's culture. The respond to that is the many older folks find a lot of pride in their race and would react negatively to it taken off, not forgetting about preserving the cultures, and roots... blah. Indeed I can understand the difficulty in doing away with the 'race' in our IC. So much of our system is based on 'race', from who can stay in which HDB flat, to what subjects you study in school...

But as Singapore open up, wouldn't there be more and more 'others'? Another funny tale that was shared by this lady with (i'm guessing here, can't really remember) brown hair, tan skin, brown eyes, in short, nothing like chinese, on how she can always start a conversion by saying: 'Hi, I'm a chinese." Turns out that when she was 12, her chinese mother brought her to SIR to declare her Singapore citizenship, and the civil servant sitting behind the desk asked her what's her race. She didn't want to be 'others' but she also don't want to be laugh at by being 'chinese' when she looks nothing like it. Anyway the choice is between chinese and others. That's when the civil servant offered her this million dollar advice: "Why do you want to be one of them, when you could be one of us?" And that's how she was made a chinese.

Janadas Devan wrote:

In my optimistic moments, I sometimes think race is merely a collective delusion that people share about their origins. Just substitute a better delusion for a worse one - call "the race of Abraham", for example, "White", instead of Arab and Jew - and there will be world peace. Regrettably, it is not as simple as that.

P/S: I heard the good news that Singapore Dreaming won the Montblanc screenwriters award. Congrats! They really did a great job. Hope to see more work from Colin and Yen Yen soon.

Get married, have a load of kids, don’t protest.

I just received a SDS membership welcome package in the mail. Turns out that any single is a member by default. Unless you happen to have a university degree, in which case you will be promoted to a SDU membership. Frankly, in this days and age, is there a need to pre-classify people by our education level? How ironic that SdS's motto is “redefine boundaries”.
I found this poem at talkingcock:

An
Ode to the SDU and SDS
In a different world,
You would have been lovers
From the start
But the heart is complicated
For despite your similarities
You play up your differences
And refuse to merge.
"How can I marry down?"
Wails the SDU.
"Won't she look down on me?"
Cries the SDS.
And so, with duplicity in your hearts
You duplicate your functions.
With matchmakers like you,
It's no wonder
People in Singapore
Aren't
Getting
Married.

I appreciate the concern from the government of Singapore and I understand that it is of utmost important that young people get married and have kids fast to replace the aging, shrinking, and migrating population. However, I believe that we should not be having kids because of economic, social or moral pressure, but out of a sense of love and commitment.

I find the programs cute and sweet, but I can’t help noticing that my life is too regulated by the government. From what movies I can watch, the language I should speak, the news I receive, how I should behave, when I should smile, right down to how many kids I should have and when. It is any wonder that Singapore finest are leaving?
(Singapore has a high migration rate est at 9.12 in year 2006, compare to Switzerland’s 3.12, Canada’s 5.85, Australia’s 3.85, Malaysia’s 0, and Brunei’s 3.31)

On another note.
Come September, the IMF and World Bank meeting will bring with them the usual, and I would say traditional, protesters. This year, they will be coming to the Republic of Singapore.[news here]
Protests in Singapore are almost unheard of. There’s one last year outside CPF , one against the death penalty, one cute bear with an anti-fur message , and the Mr Brown protest .

Nevertheless, the activist have written an open letter to PM Lee, and

“The World Bank, however, has stepped in to assure activists that space for
civil society is being negotiated to avoid what some critics of the
international financial institutions says will undermine the credibility of the
Bank's claims to promote good governance, accountability, transparency and
democracy.”

I’m guessing that it’s going to be a NO-NO, or permits must be applied before protests can be staged, and the permits will be hard to get.

It’ll be interesting to see how this will turn out. Will Singapore allow foreigners to stage protests in its home soil while her citizens are often denied the privilege?

4 million smiles outside, crying inside

In case you still do not know. Singapore wants you to welcome the world with smiles when the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group come to town in September.[see news report]
We are going to welcome the world with 4 millions smiles, literally. Singapore 2006, whatever that is, has set up a web site and is encouraging singaporean to send in pictures of them smiling.

We seems to have borrowed the idea from Thailand, traditionally known as the land of a thousand smiles, and not wanting to be outdone, have upgraded it to a staggering 4 millions smiles. I thought my primary school days of impelling courtesy champion like movements are over. Apparently not. Well, by jolly! If we need to smile at those ang mohs, we better learn to do it properly. Since we are going to hire native english speakers to teach us how to speak english, why not have native smilers teach us how to smile? Our more experience friends in Bangkok have been kind enough to share their experience with us.



--
Updated 14 July

I just found out that Singapore is the most unhappy nation among Asean and Asian nations.[see news report]
The Happy Planet Index ranked Singapore 131th base on our "relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst repecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend."
Well, we certainly need more reasons to smile.

technorati tag:
4 million smiles singapore singaporean

Silent protest at City Hall MRT for Mr Brown

At least 30 supporters turned up at City Hall station at 2:00 pm dressed in brown attire in support of the blogger, who goes by the moniker Mr Brown.

If even I know about it, I wonder why straits times and channel news asia doesn't.

technorati tag: mrbrown singapore singaporean Mr Brown

I am Singaporean!

My mother tongue was Mandarin, I didn't speak a word of English till I was in primary one.
Now, I read only English stuffs and can't write a decent sentence in Mandarin.
I try to speak good English, but I hate ang mo accent.
I never did understand why I can't buy chewing gum.
I take the MRT, when I can squeeze in.
I'm told to study hard all my life for a better future, now I feel I should have played more.
Everyone says study Poly good to find job, but after Poly still the same.
Every month 20% of my pay goes to CPF, for my own good.
I whined a lot during NS; but I never "gian" ok.
I hate reservist, but I never defer.
I'm a solider, but I have never fought in a war.
I do not smoke, but even if I do, there are not many places where I can.
I don't have to worry about no water coming out of my tap, but I must be careful about the water breeding mosquitos.
My parents voted for the first time in their life at the last election, so I guess I petty lucky I waited for only 24 years.
I love my flag, although I seldom see it around.
I am a Chinese, but my best friend is a Malay, and I think Indian girls are cute.

I am Yuen Ming De.

I am a Singaporean.

So say we all.

Technorati Tags: iamsingaporean i am singaporean singaporean singapore

A Sad Day

Mr Brown's friday colume has been suspened. For those who don't know what happened,[click here]


Technorati Tags: Mrbrown

Thud! Apprentice! And a worrying message

Must thank Lin for lending me Thud! Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Where is Mister Vimes when the world need him?

Watched the Apprentice. No matter how much people and evidence points against a single person, the person will always very strongly believe that he/she is right. So much for human huh. The scary thing is that these are the "cream of the corp" from all walks of life; if these people are incompetent and such jerks, what are the chances that the people at the top are actually any good, or that they even care?

Anyway, just tried to apply for financial aid for my course in NUS and that this message that says that the application period is over. Great. Now what?

No to casino in Singapore

The casino issue have been the talk of the town lately. I truly believes that it is a bad idea. People are arguing that gamblers will gamble in any case, legal or not; And people are already spending so much money in overseas and underground casinos that we might as well legalise it. But it is PRECISELY because people are already gamblering and losing money that we should NOT open a casino. Encouraging gamblering is against everything we have strive to achieve. The consequences will effect Singapore for generations to come. I do not see a casino in my vision of a great nation. In the end, playing against a casinos, the singapore people will always loss.
I urge all of you, please go to this web site and petition againsts having a casino: http://www.facts.com.sg