Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The price of growing up
Aug 11th
It’s been more than a year since I’ve gotten married (you would know if you’ve been diligently looking at the counter to your right), and it’s more than half a year since I’ve got a place of my own and moved out. I’ve also graduated for a year now and have been working since I graduated.
Looking back at the past year, a lot has happened, and the transition from being a student to a working adult is certainly a big one. When I was a student, there are many things that I never had to concern myself with but now that I’m a married and working person, I realise there are many things to juggle by myself which my parents used to take care of.
A large number of things that hit you when you’re working and married concerns money. When living off parents, mortgage repayments, utility bills, conservancy charges, tv licenses and other expenditures are in the furthest recesses of the mind. Only when you move out to a place of your own you realise how much all these add up every month, and you wonder why you have to incur so much costs each month just for being alive.
And before you even start wondering about incurring these monthly expenditures, you are already hit with the 10% down payment for your home and a five-figure renovation bill (these days, given inflation and all, the cheapest renovation will set you back at least $10,000). For someone who just started working, you find yourself penniless, or worse, in debt because you have to take a home renovation loan.
It gets even worse if you took a tuition fee loan and computer loan during your university days. Now that you’ve started working, the financial institutions are all too eager to start you on your monthly repayment. The end result of all these is that you never seem to be able to accumulate much in your bank account. The pay comes in and then in a week, 50 percent or more is gone.
When I was young, I wanted to grow up so badly. Now that I see and feel the price of growing up, I wish I can be a permanently carefree teenager.
The sad state of blogosphere
Aug 6th
I hate to say this but the local blogosphere is in a sad state from the perspective of blogosphere as an avenue for serious discussion of socio-political issues.
There are many bloggers making use of blogs as a platform to discuss issues of importance to society. However, I think the readership of all these ‘serious’ bloggers combined cannot even match that of Xiaxue. She claims to have 50,000 readers a day after having an online spat with another high profile blogger.
I have nothing against blogs that style themselves along the lines of tabloids. I just find it sad that people are actually more interested in gossip about celebrity bloggers than in serious issues. In the past, one could make the argument that Singaporeans do not engage in active socio-political discussions because of high barriers to entry to publishing. However, blogs changed that but still, celebrity gossip trumps socio-political discussions in terms of popularity.
If most people reading blogs are more interested in Xiaxue versus Dawn Yang, then the establishment isn’t going to take comments from socio-political bloggers too seriously since they aren’t really much of a threat. This just means that discussing socio-political issues online isn’t really worth doing because the impact isn’t there; the establishment doesn’t take the socio-political blogosphere seriously.
I guess perhaps the best thing that the PAP has done to make the average Singapore apathetic is to give a roof over the head and a full stomach. I think the average Singaporean will only become interested in socio-political issues if they are starving or they have to sleep on the streets. This is also the reason why I think Singapore will never experience the kind of political tsunami that Malaysia recently experienced.
Poverty and hunger drives people to desperation. And desperate people will have a greater propensity to do anything that appears remotely capable of making their situation better. As long as Singaporeans are kept generally well-fed and sheltered, Xiaxue versus Dawn Yang will always be more interesting than politics and social issues.
Red or white
Aug 4th
Since this week is National Day week, I’m going to write another entry regarding National Day.
During the National Day parade, Singaporeans at the parade location are always decked out in red. However, members of the PAP are always dressed in white as far as I can remember. This is something I find very interesting. Why are they not dressed in red?
Of course, half the national flag is white so it really isn’t a problem to be decked in white. However, I just think that being National Day, everyone should be united and wear the same colour, and that includes politicians. It gets a little discomforting when leaders try and differentiate themselves from the rest of the populace on National Day.
And, it doesn’t help matters that white is the party colour of the PAP. In wearing white on National Day, are the PAP members trying to subtly hint that the party and the country is one?
Of course, the list of possible interpretations can go on but I think it would be nice if PAP members switch to red during National Day parade. It may be a symbolic gesture with no practical purposes but it is a nice gesture. At least I would appreciate it. 
Political logic
Jul 22nd
It seems one of the counter arguments Singapore’s political leaders like to make when responding to criticisms about Singapore is that critics, particularly those hailing from “Western” styled liberal democracies, have no experience at all when it comes to running a government.
So, to the Singapore government, the only way critics are allowed the license to talk is when the critics have had experience with governance. It seems that experience is pretty much a pre-requisite to the government.
That being the case, why are Singaporean ministers being paid millions? In order for our ministers to talk about and formulate policies for majority of Singaporeans, shouldn’t they experience what the average Singaporean experiences in order to make policies that makes everyone better off?
For starters, the ministers should get a massive pay cut to 5% of their current salary. Next, we should house them in 4 or 5 room HDB flats, depending on how big their family is. Next, they should be banned from owning a car so that they can experience being sandwiched in overcrowded trains and buses. Maybe the water and electrical supply to their homes can be cut from time to time too.
Without such drastic measures, our ministers cannot possibly be experienced enough to formulate good policies. We really should give our ministers the best possible experience of being an average Singaporean.
Addendum:
Someone said to me this entry sounds like an angry rant. Actually, it is not. Look at the tags.
The NDP propaganda
Jul 18th
I’ve stopped watching National Day Parades for a long time. As a kid, I used to be very excited over them. However, as I grew older, they got boring.
Sure, the organisers try to do something innovative every now and then but these are just cosmetic effects. The boring thing about NDP is that the story is the same. It’s the same old fairy tale of how Singapore climbed from third world to first by overcoming tons of obstacles and adversities under the capable leadership (of the PAP). It gets really boring to hear the same old propaganda every year.
It would be perhaps a little too much to compare NDP to the kinds of massive, feel good parades that Hitler used to do for his fellow Germans more than half a century ago. However, I cannot help but feel some similarities. At each NDP, the “Singapore Story” is replayed over and over again, but which version of the story are we hearing? My take is that we are hearing what those in power want us to hear and hope for us to believe in the story.
Unless I need some mental anesthetic, I’ll probably not watch NDP ever again.
Of race and religion laws
Jul 11th
Reading the Singapore Statutes Online, I find that our Penal Code Cap 224, Article 298, is very interesting. It says that:
“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
I absolutely understand that lawmakers mean well when drafting and approving this particular law in the Penal Code. Unfortunately, it is my belief that things can get really messy should someone decide to challenge the law the meaning of “wounding religious or racial feelings” is highly ambiguous. There are probably many more scenarios other than the following ones that I can think of which illustrate the complexities of “wounding religious or racial feelings” but I think the following hypothetical scenarios will sufficiently illustrate the degree of complexity involved with this law.
Scenario 1
A person of Chinese race and Singaporean nationality hurls some verbal racial abuse at a person of Chinese race and China nationality. Under this particular article in the Penal Code, is the Singaporean guilty of wounding the racial feelings of the Chinese person from China? Similarly, if a Singaporean Malay hurls verbal racial abuse at a Malaysian Malay, is the Singaporean Malay considered to have wounded the racial feelings of the Malaysian Malay?
Scenario 2
If a Christian, in proselytizing his/her religion to a Taoist, deliberately says that the Taoist acts of idol worship is wrong and a major sin, and the Taoist is offended by the remark, is the Christian considered to have wounded the religious feelings of the Taoist?
In scenario 1, the big question is whether can people have their racial feelings wounded by someone of their own race. In scenario 2, the question is, how do we determine intention? To one party, there is no feeling of any intention to wound the religious feelings of the other person. However, the other person feels that there is an intention to wound his/her racial feelings.
Of course, as a lay person, I could be misinformed. Perhaps to the lawyers, the law is crystal clear. I don’t know. I just think that issues such as race and religion are hard to regulate and such a broad law has too many grey areas, even though the law is well-intentioned.
How to avoid being convicted of sedition
Jun 5th
It seems that Gopalan Nair is now being charged for sedition.
According to the Sedition Act (available here), it seems that Nair has only four possible defenses against the charge of sedition.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I think point C is quite interesting. Let’s have some hypothetical scenarios:
Person A thinks the government is corrupt. He then goes on to publish and distribute a publication to other people accusing the government of corruption. Does it mean Person A can get away with it by adding in a line somewhere that encourages people to vote the existing government that is corrupt in his eyes out of office? Afterall, voting out an existing government is a lawful way of resolving the matter.
Person B is a racist. He publishes all sorts of racist remarks and distributes them widely. In each of his racist publication, he encourages people of his race to lobby their representatives in the legislature to pass a law that marginalise other races. Can Person B get away with publishing the racist comments? After all, he is not asking people to riot and create unrest but rather, he is encouraging the use lawful procedures to enforce his racist beliefs.
I don’t have the answers. It’s just interesting to read that “any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious” if there is an “attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore”.
If anyone reading this entry thinks that this entry has a seditious tendency, please note I’m writing this in the spirit of point B.
Lax editorial standards at Today?
Jun 3rd
Uncle Yap took two snapshots of two different versions of the Today newspaper on the arrest of Gopalan Nair. The story essentially remained unchanged but the headline changed.
Of course, Uncle Yap has his own theory about why the headline was changed but I don’t think his conspiracy theory analysis is correct. It seems more likely to me that the night editor was sleeping when he approved the headline for print. The problem with the first headline wasn’t exactly the issue of Gopalan Nair being an American citizen but rather, the problem was the original headline was factually wrong.
Gopalan Nair hasn’t been convicted and jailed. He is merely in police custody as the police conduct their investigations. It just seems to me that whoever wrote the story did not do a proper fact check or confused being in police custody with jailing. Maybe in Singapore, many lines are blurred and people both assume and conflate many things. I remember some time back, a police officer got confused between a political party and a government, saying that both are the same.
I don’t have the physical copy of the second version, though. I would like to see if the later edition had an erratum somewhere in the paper. I can accept honest mistakes but if Today sneakily changed the headline without an erratum, that’s highly unprofessional. The PDF version of the later version is available on the website of the Today newspaper but I did not see the erratum in that version and that is seriously disturbing.
Also, I think Gopalan Nair can sue Today for defamation. He has not been convicted and jailed but the headline stated that he has been jailed. I think the editors at Today should issue an erratum to mitigate the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.
Barking up the wrong tree on FDW legislation?
Jun 2nd
This entry was first published in Singapore Angle Perspectives last week and I’m reproducing it on my own blog for future reference.
Barking up the wrong tree on FDW legislation?
The Ministry of Manpower has once again refused calls for a law making it mandatory for employers to give their foreign domestic workers (FDWs) a day off every month and the refusal has led to some fairly negative reports and commentaries (see here and here).
According to a Channel News Asia report, acting Minister of Manpower Gan Kim Yong said accredited employment agencies are required to use a standard contract and that the contract already stipulates the number of rest days the employer is obliged to give every month (note: the range is 1 to 4 days), and if the employer wishes to engage the service of the domestic worker on their rest days, the employer has to compensate the domestic worker.
Curious about the terms of contract between an employer and a foreign domestic worker, I went to Case Trust website and dug up the employment contract and the explanatory notes (all are in MS-Word format). After reading the contract, I must say Gan does have a good point.
The standard contract drafted up by CASE is actually pretty comprehensive and detailed. It even specifies the nature and scope of jobs that the domestic worker should perform. If the domestic worker is not agreeable to the scope and nature of the job required by a potential employer, she can refuse to sign the contract, assuming there is no undue pressure from the agency.
And the contract, when signed, makes it compulsory for the employer to provide for the upkeep of the domestic worker at all times. Even if the employer decides to terminate the contract prematurely, upkeep has to be maintained until the worker either goes home or finds another employer. And, in the agreement between employer and agency, the employer has to agree not to obstruct the re-employment of the domestic worker in the event of termination.
The only reason as far as I can see for support of legislation mandating a rest day for foreign domestic workers is that such a law, if passed, will apply across the board, whether it’s a Case Trust accredited or non-accredited employment agency. The only concern is that foreign domestic workers working under non-Case Trust accredited agencies might be shortchanged by both agency and employer.
If that is the case, then proponents of legislating mandatory rest day for foreign domestic workers are barking up the wrong tree. They should really be calling for legislation making accreditation compulsory, i.e. licensing. The problem would be solved if only licensed employment agencies that adhere to the kind of standards set by Case are allowed to operate. Accreditation in itself is voluntary and has little bite unless either majority of employment agencies are accredited or employers mostly shun non-accredited agencies.
However, one can still argue that even though there is a legal contract, the domestic worker can still receive the short end of the stick because some of them are not well-versed enough in the English language to understand their rights under the contract. A translated equivalent of the contract in the worker’s native language in the same signed contract will resolve this issue.
I think the Case Trust accreditation scheme for employment agencies is certainly the right way to go. The only chink in the armour is that accreditation is not compulsory. If there is a way to make accreditation compulsory, then it might be unnecessary for a legislation mandating compulsory rest days for FDWs.
The States Times versus IHT
May 30th
Our top local English newspaper, the Straits Times, has sometimes been derisively called the States Times, and this observation is not for no good reason. Let’s compare some newspaper reports, two from the Straits Times (Story 1 and Story 2) and the other from International Herald Tribune, about the recent court hearing involving MM Lee and Chee Soon Juan.
The Straits Times stories were published on 27th May and when I read them that day, the first thing that struck my mind was both stories were all coming from the perspective of MM Lee. It was all about the case that MM Lee made against Chee Soon Juan and there was nothing about Chee’s case against MM Lee. I think any educated person will be able to see these two stories are not journalistic writing. These two stories could have well been published in the PAP’s website or newsletter and not look out of place.
Let’s look at the piece by IHT. To be honest, I do think the IHT piece is a wee bit biased against MM Lee but the journalist managed to contain the bias quite well and presented both sides of the story, unlike the two pieces from the Straits Times which were so obviously biased in favour of MM Lee. The IHT piece had quotes from both sides, although there were some unnecessary interpretations, such as the following paragraph:
Lee expressed what seemed an extraordinary sense of vulnerability, even to the words of a lone critic, while his antagonist described a compulsion – even a mission – to challenge power at any cost.
The journalist was very smart in making the negative observation, though. To deny MM Lee any possibility of a defamation lawsuit (IHT is most certainly most familiar with defamation threats from MM Lee), he deliberately added the word “seemed”. This one word might seem to be rather insignificant but those writing online can do well to learn from the IHT journalist and use words or phrases such as “seemed”, “appeared”, “I think that…”, “It is my opinion that…” etc.
When using such words and/or phrases, it is obvious to a reader that the sentence is a statement of opinion and not fact. I am no expert on defamation but my understanding is that opinions are accepted to be inherently flawed and one cannot be successfully sued for defamation if it is clear that one is expressing an opinion and not a statement of fact. Of course, there are many other intricacies involved in determining whether someone has indeed defamed another but if you know how to write cleverly, couching negative observations as an opinion does help reduce the chances of being sued for libel.
I must say I enjoyed the IHT piece a lot more than the two Straits Times pieces. I think it does more justice to Chee Soon Juan. You may say that I’m biased but I do think the IHT piece is real journalism. As for the two Straits Times pieces, you can decide for yourself what labels you want to place on them.
Recent Comments