Saturday, May 05, 2012
"Guaranteed: Above 18 years of age"
 |
| "Guaranteed: Above 18 years of age" |
This was published in yesterday's (4 May 2012) 《早报现在》/"zbNow". Haa, incidentally, my colleague jokingly said a few weeks ago that the demand for "mature" sex workers is likely to increase.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Yaw Has Been Expelled, What Now?
In case you all are not aware yet, The Workers' Party (WP) held a press conference earlier today to announce that Mr. Yaw Shin Leong, who has recently been embroiled in allegations that he was involved in extramarital affairs, will be expelled from the WP. This would mean that Mr. Yaw will not be able to continue as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Hougang and a by-election will need to be held for Hougang residents to elect a replacement.
Although things are now still in a state of uncertainty and flux, I will just like to share some quick thoughts on this post-Yaw situation.
Although things are now still in a state of uncertainty and flux, I will just like to share some quick thoughts on this post-Yaw situation.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Ask not why you were not invited, ask why they must invite you
Ask not why you were not invited, ask why they must invite you.
The above statement was what first came to my mind as I read this post by Ms. Vigneswari V Ramachandran who is head of the Reform Party's (RP) youth wing.
I find it rather presumptuous for the RP to perhaps imply that it must be invited to the "Young Guns" forum and that by not inviting them, it was "deliberately left out"; and judging by the second paragraph of Ms. Vigneswari's post, the RP seems to be implying that this non-invitation is part of the "'media blackout' on the Reform Party and its candidates".
It should be pointed out that the RP was not the only party that was not present at the forum - other parties such as the Singapore People's Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance and Socialist Front were also not present but so far, I have not come across any complaints from them about not being invited to the forum. Of course, perhaps these other parties were invited but they declined to attend.
The point however is: why must the RP be invited? The only plausible reason offered which I can see from Ms. Vigneswari's post is that the RP believes it has "important points to share the students of NUS [sic] as they have the right to know whatever we [the RP] wish to share".
Okay but what's stopping the RP from organising its own forum and invite NUS students (or anyone else, for that matter) to know about the "important points" it wishes to share? Why must the NUS Students' Political Association (NUSPA) invite the RP so that the latter can share its "important points"? If the NUSPA has to invite everyone and anyone who thinks they have something important to share with NUS students, there will be perhaps an endless list of people they have to invite.
In the end, it is well within the NUSPA's right to choose who they want to invite or not invite - if you are invited, good but if you are not invited, then so be it; there is really no need to question why you were not invited and give the impression that you demand to be invited.
Also, I find it rather curious that besides sending it to parties within NUS, the RP apparently also sent Ms. Vigneswari's post to the Deans of Yale University and Duke University. While I understand that these two universities have joint programmes with NUS, I do not really understand why the RP thinks it necessary to bring these two universities into what is essentially a private disagreement between it and the NUSPA.
Was the RP attempting to demonstrate to these two universities that NUS is perhaps somewhat politically unfree just because the NUSPA did not invite it to a forum? If this is indeed the case, then I must say that the RP must really think a lot of itself. (On this note, if this website is to believed, Yale and Duke are not the only overseas universities which NUS have partnerships with - perhaps these other universities are feeling sore at being "deliberately left out" by the RP)
To conclude, I just like to point out that while it is good that a political party has self-confidence in itself, self-confidence can easily be interpreted as over-confidence, if not arrogance. Also, while one may have the right to make oneself heard, this is not the same as a right to demand to be heard.
The above statement was what first came to my mind as I read this post by Ms. Vigneswari V Ramachandran who is head of the Reform Party's (RP) youth wing.
I find it rather presumptuous for the RP to perhaps imply that it must be invited to the "Young Guns" forum and that by not inviting them, it was "deliberately left out"; and judging by the second paragraph of Ms. Vigneswari's post, the RP seems to be implying that this non-invitation is part of the "'media blackout' on the Reform Party and its candidates".
It should be pointed out that the RP was not the only party that was not present at the forum - other parties such as the Singapore People's Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance and Socialist Front were also not present but so far, I have not come across any complaints from them about not being invited to the forum. Of course, perhaps these other parties were invited but they declined to attend.
The point however is: why must the RP be invited? The only plausible reason offered which I can see from Ms. Vigneswari's post is that the RP believes it has "important points to share the students of NUS [sic] as they have the right to know whatever we [the RP] wish to share".
Okay but what's stopping the RP from organising its own forum and invite NUS students (or anyone else, for that matter) to know about the "important points" it wishes to share? Why must the NUS Students' Political Association (NUSPA) invite the RP so that the latter can share its "important points"? If the NUSPA has to invite everyone and anyone who thinks they have something important to share with NUS students, there will be perhaps an endless list of people they have to invite.
In the end, it is well within the NUSPA's right to choose who they want to invite or not invite - if you are invited, good but if you are not invited, then so be it; there is really no need to question why you were not invited and give the impression that you demand to be invited.
Also, I find it rather curious that besides sending it to parties within NUS, the RP apparently also sent Ms. Vigneswari's post to the Deans of Yale University and Duke University. While I understand that these two universities have joint programmes with NUS, I do not really understand why the RP thinks it necessary to bring these two universities into what is essentially a private disagreement between it and the NUSPA.
Was the RP attempting to demonstrate to these two universities that NUS is perhaps somewhat politically unfree just because the NUSPA did not invite it to a forum? If this is indeed the case, then I must say that the RP must really think a lot of itself. (On this note, if this website is to believed, Yale and Duke are not the only overseas universities which NUS have partnerships with - perhaps these other universities are feeling sore at being "deliberately left out" by the RP)
To conclude, I just like to point out that while it is good that a political party has self-confidence in itself, self-confidence can easily be interpreted as over-confidence, if not arrogance. Also, while one may have the right to make oneself heard, this is not the same as a right to demand to be heard.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
NUS, an unfree university, really?
Some of you all may be aware that an exchange student from Yale wrote an article, based on his observations during his stay in Singapore, asserting that there is no student freedom at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
Expectedly, this article attracted what may be described as a flood of comments - some agreeing with the author's assertion and others rebutting him. And on Facebook, partly due to the fact that I am a recent Political Science graduate from NUS, I have been privy to the sharing and rebutting of the article by my fellow NUS Political Science students and by NUS Political Science professors.
As several others have already cogently refuted the article, I shall only say that, in my opinion, the author of the article has made several sweeping and damning conclusions based only on rather superficial observations.
For those of you all who are interested, what follows below are two of the critiques of the article, besides the comments (which are well worth the time reading through) made on the article's website, I have seen online so far.
i) "From Singapore: a defence of Yale's partnership"
ii) "A letter to Max de La Bruyère, Editor-in-Chief of Yale Daily News" (notably, this was written by Mr. Bernard Chen Jiaxi who is Secretary of the Workers' Party Youth Wing)
I perhaps may be biased but in my opinion, although NUS is not perfect or the most free university around, it is not as bad or unfree as some may think it is.
P.S. It may perhaps no longer be there but one of my more vivid memories of the NUS Political Science Honours Students Room was the Reform Party/JBJ commemorative poster that was affixed onto one of the walls in the room. So NUS, an unfree university, really?
P.P.S. 30/1/2012
Came across this other Facebook note on the issue by another exchange student from the US: "Academic Freedom at the National University of Singapore".
Another post by another exchange student from the US: "Academic Freedom is Alive in Singapore".
Expectedly, this article attracted what may be described as a flood of comments - some agreeing with the author's assertion and others rebutting him. And on Facebook, partly due to the fact that I am a recent Political Science graduate from NUS, I have been privy to the sharing and rebutting of the article by my fellow NUS Political Science students and by NUS Political Science professors.
As several others have already cogently refuted the article, I shall only say that, in my opinion, the author of the article has made several sweeping and damning conclusions based only on rather superficial observations.
For those of you all who are interested, what follows below are two of the critiques of the article, besides the comments (which are well worth the time reading through) made on the article's website, I have seen online so far.
i) "From Singapore: a defence of Yale's partnership"
ii) "A letter to Max de La Bruyère, Editor-in-Chief of Yale Daily News" (notably, this was written by Mr. Bernard Chen Jiaxi who is Secretary of the Workers' Party Youth Wing)
I perhaps may be biased but in my opinion, although NUS is not perfect or the most free university around, it is not as bad or unfree as some may think it is.
P.S. It may perhaps no longer be there but one of my more vivid memories of the NUS Political Science Honours Students Room was the Reform Party/JBJ commemorative poster that was affixed onto one of the walls in the room. So NUS, an unfree university, really?
P.P.S. 30/1/2012
Came across this other Facebook note on the issue by another exchange student from the US: "Academic Freedom at the National University of Singapore".
Another post by another exchange student from the US: "Academic Freedom is Alive in Singapore".
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Going Beyond Salaries
I guess this post may be somewhat belated or will perhaps contribute no new insights now that the debate (at least the one in Parliament) over how much Singapore's political office-holders should be paid is over. However, reading Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong's comments in his 2012 Chinese New Year message on what the government will do to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, I cannot help but notice the disparity in the reasoning he used for this issue and the reasoning he used for the political office-holders salaries review.
Specifically, in his 2012 Chinese New Year message, the PM pointed out that in order to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, the "critical factor is not more financial incentives, but creating the supportive social climate and attitudes that will encourage couples to have more children".
Now, perhaps they are two distinctly separate issues but in my opinion, what the PM said above about what is needed to encourage Singaporeans have more children is perhaps also applicable to the issue of how much local political office-holders should be paid.
As many of you all would be aware, the government's reasoning of why political office-holders need to be paid competitive (i.e. high) salaries is premised on how these salaries need to be attractive enough to attract competent individuals to enter into politics and subsequently take up political office. However, as others and I (in an earlier post) have pointed out, while monetary remuneration can be a factor in individuals' consideration about whether to enter into politics, it is perhaps not the only or most important factor.
Indeed, beyond depending solely on offering competitive salaries, it is perhaps also necessary that, for example, initiatives be put in place to inculcate a greater sense of public spirit in people so as to encourage more people to enter into politics, regardless of the salary level.
Admittedly, these initiatives may require more effort, take longer to bear fruit and the results more uncertain. But I suppose such initiatives will be much better for Singapore in the long-term and generate much less antipathy.
In the end, while it is true that men cannot live without bread, men too do not and should not live only for bread.
Specifically, in his 2012 Chinese New Year message, the PM pointed out that in order to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, the "critical factor is not more financial incentives, but creating the supportive social climate and attitudes that will encourage couples to have more children".
Now, perhaps they are two distinctly separate issues but in my opinion, what the PM said above about what is needed to encourage Singaporeans have more children is perhaps also applicable to the issue of how much local political office-holders should be paid.
As many of you all would be aware, the government's reasoning of why political office-holders need to be paid competitive (i.e. high) salaries is premised on how these salaries need to be attractive enough to attract competent individuals to enter into politics and subsequently take up political office. However, as others and I (in an earlier post) have pointed out, while monetary remuneration can be a factor in individuals' consideration about whether to enter into politics, it is perhaps not the only or most important factor.
Indeed, beyond depending solely on offering competitive salaries, it is perhaps also necessary that, for example, initiatives be put in place to inculcate a greater sense of public spirit in people so as to encourage more people to enter into politics, regardless of the salary level.
Admittedly, these initiatives may require more effort, take longer to bear fruit and the results more uncertain. But I suppose such initiatives will be much better for Singapore in the long-term and generate much less antipathy.
In the end, while it is true that men cannot live without bread, men too do not and should not live only for bread.
Monday, January 16, 2012
I am going to Las Vegas for 24 months
First and foremost, I want to clarify that I am not really going to Las Vegas for 24 months. The title of this blog post is referring to an internet meme which has been spreading on Facebook these few days. I got to know about this meme when a female friend of mine posted the following on her Facebook Wall (she apparently gotten it from someone else):
Okay pretty ladies, it's that time of year again...support of breast Cancer Awareness!! Some of you may already seen this one, but I've not, hence am playing along. So we all remember last year's game of writing your bra color as your status? Or the way we like to have our handbag handy? Last year, so many people took part that it made national news and the constant updating of status reminded everyone why we're doing this and helped raise awareness!!! Do NOT tell any males what the statuses mean... ... keep them guessing!! And please copy and paste (in a message) this to all your female friends! The idea is to choose the month you were born and the day you were born. Pass this on to the GIRLS ONLY and lets see how far it reaches around. The last one about the bra went around all over the world.
Your status should say:
"I am going to ______________for___________ months."
The month you were born is where you are going and the day you were born should be for how many months you are going.
January--Mexico
February-- London
March--Miami
April--Dominican Republic
May--France
June-- St. Petersburg
July--Austria
August--Germany
September--New York
October-Amsterdam
November--Las Vegas
December--Colombia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cqHIgeDYYGWaVvNAHVpx2fZWHH23BkxL41zenpbC4v2GXiaqk0FIJ-en1q07yYK3rJDGA4ubBWuwv5Ey9ASwyTg2NOcK5WBcVwmcwbJSbTEjV31H36atgLq2BFR77JCiIiGwnS_1bmPiB86mlX13WMPn32u49rpAe3rA5PBXRjYFwwhAouzfqTgc4u6AyuxtXSu7k_cOflLp_ckf9Mn7Jcj7q9SuOzQiQCr-mDYXnXbIzbk4Rk%3D&attredirects=0)