Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble

This year’s National Day Rally speech is interesting because of the amount of time devoted to the topic of racial and religious pluralism in Singapore. There is no doubt that many people are still concerned about the state of the economy, and the prime minister would do well to dwell on that issue at length, but instead, a choice was made to devote a considerable amount of time on the issues of race and religion, issues which have not been publicly dealt with by the head of our government for a good number of years.

I am most certainly pleased that the prime minister has chosen to discuss the topic candidly and respectfully. Racial and religious harmony can never be taken for granted, and it is necessary to bring this topic onto the public agenda from time to time, lest we forget the painful lessons of our history. However, the content was pretty much predictable, toeing established government lines on race and religion, but well, what else can we expect from this occasional flogging of a dead horse?

The prime minister has outlined the various government efforts to maintain race and religious harmony in Singapore in terms of the punitive legislative measures, behind the scenes efforts to engage religious leaders and mediation efforts to amicably resolve conflicts, nipping potential flash points in the bud. However, I think what is more important is to cultivate a sense of understanding in Singaporeans with regards to race and religion, and not just mere tolerance.

Tolerance in my opinion, especially in the context of race and religion, simply means suppressing one’s objections or discomfort. A person can be racially tolerant, but it does not mean that person is not a racist. I am willing to bet to my last dollar that there are racists and religious extremists in Singapore who do not express their feelings outwardly because they don’t want to be thrown into jail under Singapore’s strict racial and religious harmony laws. These people can be said to be tolerant, but is this a satisfactory outcome? What will happen if the strong mandate of the state vanishes?

What we need is to engender understanding rather than tolerance. Easier said than done. It’s really about getting the individual to step out of their comfort zones. A person who always surrounds himself or herself with people of the same race or the same religion is very much less likely to be understanding of other races and religion. The association with people of similar traits is likely to result in the narrowing of one’s thought and thus resulting in diminished racial and religious understanding ability.

Forcing people to mix together, especially adults, isn’t a very good idea. It’s easier to do so with children, though. I remember I went to a government primary school, and many of my current friends from other races were made from back then. We played together, laughed together and were punished by our teachers together. At least for me, I didn’t care about race or religion; all I knew was that it was fun to be with everyone, regardless of race and religion.

I think the best starting point for racial and religious understanding is during childhood, and the government has to try and make sure that children experience racial and religious plurality at a young age, no matter which schools they are in. I generally don’t support government propaganda and ‘brainwashing’, but I am willing to make an exception for the sake of developing of religious and racial understanding.

I ranted about Straits Times a couple of days ago over the quality of their content, and today I just had to see something to make me rant again. This time, it’s not even about quality of content; it’s about their atrocious quality of writing and editing. Bad content, bad writing and editing. Can our flagship English newspaper sink any lower?

Here’s the problematic lead paragraph (original article here):

WHILE most offenders appeal in the hope of lowering their sentences, 18-year-old Danny Koh Jia Gui asked an appeal judge to be jailed and caned instead of having to undergo reformative training.

The confusing part is in bold. The sentence construction conveys the meaning that Koh had asked for the jailing and caning of the judge instead of asking for the judge to jail and cane Koh. The copy editor was obviously SLEEPING on the job. If I were the copy editor, I would have rewritten the lead paragraph as follows:

While most offenders appeal in the hope of lowering their sentences, 18-year-old Danny Koh Jia Gui asked an appeal judge to impose a jail sentence and caning instead of reformative training.

The rewritten paragraph has the same number of words with much greater clarity in meaning.

Sigh.

Update:

I just realised the Straits Time put up a rewritten story, and the original that I read was posted up yesterday, but a new version put up today. It seems like they have quality control problems, but as always, they try to secretly change the story and hope nobody notices instead of admitting they screwed up.

The first version I read:

The second version

Ever since changes to Singapore’s political system was announced a few months back, I’ve been thinking about why the Lee Hsien Loong government has decided to do all these when it is obvious there’s little tangible gain to the PAP from taking a small, liberal step towards reforming our political system. Reactions that followed the announcements of increasing the number of NCMPs, reducing the size of GRCs, increasing the number of single seat constituencies and permanently entrenching the NMP scheme as part of the Singapore political space were drawn along familiar battle lines, with the more belligerent cyberspace facing off against the cheerleading mainstream media.

I believe that most arguments for and against these changes have been exhausted, so I’m not going to comment about that. What piqued my curiosity regarding these announcements was the purpose behind them, and I came up with two possible explanations. It’s either the PAP has come to realise that being too politically dominant is is potentially threatening to their own political survival or Lee Hsien Loong is starting to move his chess pieces to secure his legacy in future annals. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe the latter reason is more plausible.

Singapore’s first post independence Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, is most remembered for his iron fisted style of governance. In his drive to move Singapore from Third World to First World, Lee adopted a ‘my way or the highway approach’, and while this approach has had admirers, with the more recent ones being the Chinese Communist Party cadres, it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Singaporeans.

After Lee Kuan Yew came Goh Chok Tong, a leader with a softer personality but with the previous Prime Minister still sitting in Parliament and Cabinet as Senior Minister, and wielding extremely strong influence to boot, there was little Goh could do, so he built his legacy as a Prime Minister by masking the entrenched iron fisted style of governance with a velvet glove.

It seems that Lee Hsien Loong has decided against being a carbon copy of Goh and wants to carve out his own unique legacy. My guess is that the announced political changes are part of his plan to cushion the entrenched iron fisted style of governance, changing not just the look but lowering the pain of being punched by an iron fist. I believe there’re probably more changes afoot as Lee Hsien Loong continues to think about his place in future history books.

The real question I would like to see answered in the coming years is whether Lee Hsien Loong is willing to stop at donning boxing gloves, or would he be willing to replace the iron first with a gentle fist? Well, maybe he should go the whole nine yards. If everything ends up being upended by the end of Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure, his successor is going to have a difficult time.

This blog has not been updated for a while, and I don’t know if I’ll continue to update it with the intensity of the past. It’s a combination of factors for the lack of updates but generally, I guess the fire in the belly has fizzled considerably, perhaps due to age, work, married life, new life interests and other factors that I’m unable to pinpoint.

I guess I’ll probably still write on this blog sporadically. There are many voices these days commenting on the gamut of socio-political-economic issues in Singapore society today that perhaps my views are perhaps unnecessary, except for a niche group of people who bother checking this blog every now and then. Nonetheless, I still want to document my views from time to time, and perhaps some years down the road when I do a proper content analysis of my blog I will be surprised to find out how I’ve changed through the years.

Till the next entry.

I was just reading this website that’s trying to raise awareness of dating violence (http://www.chooselovenotabuse.com/). This whole concept of dating violence, I must admit, is something that’s foreign to me, probably due to my idealistic views of a relationship.

The first thought I had of what constitutes dating violence was physical violence, and as an afterthought, sexual violence. And yes, my immediate mental imagery was that of men as the abusers and women as the victims (looks like I’m not immune to gender stereotyping). Well, perhaps some women might abuse their partners physically, but I’m not quite sure about the sex part… Never mind.

Anyway, it turns out that emotional and psychological abuse are part of dating violence too. I don’t quite get what’s the difference between the two, though. Do our emotions not emerge from our brains as well? Why the different classification? Anyway, I’m digressing. The point here is that dating violence isn’t necessarily restricted to physical or sexual harm.

I don’t understand why would anyone resort to physical or sexual abuse of their partners. If you’re pissed off and need to take things out physically, go pummel a wall or sandbag. If you are not having enough sex, I’m sure there are better options other than forcing yourself on your partner. If you’re the one on the receiving end, I sure you wouldn’t enjoy the experience of being either physically or sexually abused (masochists excluded from my argument).

As for psychological/emotional violence, this is a little tricky. Being humans, we do get upset and say hurtful things or carry out actions that might wound our partners psychologically and emotionally. I am guilty of inflicting psychological/emotional hurt sometimes. I definitely need to continue working on that to be, in the words of Robbie Williams, a better man. But I guess the occasional outburst is pretty normal; it becomes dangerous only when the psychological/emotional hurting becomes pathological.

If you’ve been physically or sexually abused by your partner, I think it’s clearly time to seek help. As for psychological or emotional abuse, this is going to be a harder call. I don’t know where the line is drawn for non-physical forms of dating violence. I believe different people have different thresholds and definitions of psychological/emotional abuse. Nonetheless, it’s perhaps a good idea to read up a little on dating violence. You might never know when the information could come in handy.

Anyway, for all of you who are attached or married, have a great Valentine’s Day. If you are in a long-distance relationship as I am now, I feel your pain. I’ve held out fine on my own for a few months but my walls are crumbling. When you are with someone for a long time, their absence is like having a heart or lung missing (not that I know what it feels like to be literally having a missing heart or lung; it’s a figure of speech).

So if you’re spending your Valentine’s Day this year with your significant other by your side, take a moment to cherish the fact that she’s with you now. Even though videoconferencing technology is cheap and easily accessible these days, it still remains a poor substitute. Nothing beats having your loved one by your side. Enjoy your Valentine’s Day while I stare into tonight’s sky wondering if my wife is looking at the same moon on the other side of the globe at the same time.